LAWS(ORI)-2022-10-94

GUPTESWAR MEHER Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On October 10, 2022
Gupteswar Meher Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, who is serving as Pharmacist, has prayed for quashing of criminal proceeding in G.R.Case No.237 of 2021 arising out of Birmaharajapur P.S.Case No.116 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned S.D.J.M., Birmaharajpur.

(2.) It is alleged that the Petitioner gave one injection to the minor son (aged about 5 years) of the informant and then he turned convulsion and died. As per the prosecution case, on 3/6/2021 the deceased was suffering from skin infection and the Petitioner being the Pharmacist of local hospital, i.e. the Primary Health Centre, Kotsamalai was called for treatment. The Petitioner injected some medicine to the deceased. After some time froth came out from the mouth of the deceased and he became unconscious. The deceased was then shifted to District Headquarters Hospital, Subarnapur and died there. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and based on the same, learned S.D.J.M, took cognizance of offences under Ss. 419/304 of the I.P.C.

(3.) As per the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner, he was serving in the PHC for last 21 years and not a single allegation of negligence or unauthorized statement has been made against him except the present one. In Kotsamalai PHC, doctors were not there on many occasions and the patients coming there were given first hand treatment by the Petitioner in absence of the doctor. On 3/6/2021 it was a COVID infected period and many persons of the locality were infected. The Petitioner was busy in treatment of such Covid patients, when the parents of the deceased approached him regarding illness of their son. He was suffering from skin infection and limping. So the Petitioner being a Pharmacist gave Ceftriaxone Injection 250 to the deceased, which is a known medicine for skin infection. It is therefore submitted that the action of the Petitioner was with bona fide belief for treatment and being a Pharmacist, he is authorized to treat patients in absence of doctor as per the Health Department Circular No.6129534/H dtd. 23/9/2003 and Circular No.12524/H dtd. 21/5/2008 of Government of Odisha. It is thus submitted that none of the ingredients of either offence is attracted and therefore, the proceeding should be quashed.