HARIHAR NATH GARG Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 482. Cr.P.C. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of proceedings in Criminal case No-161/96 registered in G.R.P. police station, Guna, for committing ollcnce under section 491/34. I.P.C and the proceedings pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate class First. Shadhora, in Criminal case No-560/99. in which the charges under Sections 491 and 304-A, I.P.C are framed against the present applicant. The said order is confirmed in Criminal Revision No. 44/2000 by the AddI. Sessions Judge and the Special Judge. Guna, by order dt-10-4-2000.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the Criminal case are that on 28/6/1996, a complaint was lodged by some of the employees of Railway that one Jeep from Civil Hospital came to the Railway Station. From the said Jeep one Sunderlal and Pawan and some of her persons got down and threw a body of it person, namely, Ghasiya. Who died immediately thereafter on the station and returned back. The present applicant is a doctor in the Civil Hospital. It is alleged that the deceased had approached to the Hospital for his treatment. He was 80 years old person and suffering from Leprosy and the petitioner without giving him medical help thrown him on the Railway Station. The deceased died for want of proper treatment. Hence a complaint was filed with the Police. On the basis of the Complaint a case was registered against the present Petitioner. The present Petitioner being a Government Servant permission to prosecute the present petitioner was sought from the Government and the government ranted Permission on 28/11/1997 for prosecuting the petitioner for counting the offence u/s 491. I.P.C on 17/1/1997, a challan was filed. The charge was framed against the present petitioner on 23/2/2000. This order was also challenged before the Revisional Court. The said revision is dismissed by the impugned order hence the petition is filed under section 482. Cr.P.C.

(3.) The First contention raised by Shri RD. Jam the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Court below has erred in taking cognizance of the oflence u/ss. 491 and 304-A. I.P.C. According to him the maximum punishment for committing offence u/s 491. I.P.C is three months hence the challan should have been filed within one month from the date of committing the offence. In the present case the challan is filed after a lapse of one month hence the proceedings u/s 491. I.P.C. are barred by time and not maintainable. As regards the charge u/s 304-A. I.P.C. is concerned the limitation is three years. According to him on the dale of the framing of the charge three years were already over. At the same time according to him the sanction granted by the Government to prosecute the present petitioner was only for committing the offence u/s 491. I.P.C Hence, according to him the proceeding are not only barred by limitation but also not maintainable for want of sanction u/s 197. Cr.P.C. He further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the present petitioner ever refused to treat the deceased hence in absence of any evidence the Court should not have taken cognizance of the offences.