BAKSA Vs. ISHWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Munsif Magistrate, First Class, sirohi, on 26th September, 1962.

(2.) THE respondent was prosecuted on a complaint by Baksa under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent was enlisted as a practitioner under section 36 (I) of the Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act, 1953 on 16th March, 1959. The complaint against him was that he was running a private dispensary of his own known as Amrit Ankhon Ka Dawakhana' and held out himself as a eye specialist. A signboard is also exhibited at this dispensary and from time to time hand-bills are distributed at his instance to the effect that he is an eye specialist and can cure every type of eye trouble. The appellant who had a cataract in his right eye being impressed by the said hand-bills approached the respondent for his treatment on Ist March, 1960. The respondent after examining his right eye, suggested an immediate operation. On the complainant's agreeing to it, on the same day at about 5 P. M. the respondent performed an operation of the appellant's right eye at the house of his (complainant's) son-in-law. It is the case of the complainant that after the operation he felt severe pain in his right eye. The respondent was then consulted again on which he gave an injection and some tablets to be taken orally and for about a month the respondent himself continued applying hot water fomentation to the appellant's eye. After a month, since no improvement was found, the respondent gave him some medicines for applying them at his house. It is further the case of the complainant that eventually when the bandage was removed, it was found that he had gone blind by that eye. Then on 30th January, 1961, he showed his eye to Dr. G. P. Banerjee at Sirohi who thus reported that 'pthysis Bulbi of the right eye with an irregular scar at the sebro corneal junction. The right Eyeball is shrinking depressed with no vision. Pupil is absent no projection or perception of light. ' It is the case of the complainant that the respondent was not authorised to perform eye operation and under the certificate which he held he was authorised to practise medicine only. It is further his case that he had performed the operation with gross negligence with the result that he lost his eyesight completely and the vitreous fluid which was stored in the back of the eye, came out and caused blindness of that eye.

(3.) AFTER a preliminary enquiry, the case under Section 337 of the Indian Penal code was registered against the respondent. In support of the complaint, the complainant gave his own statement and examined three more witnesses including Dr. Banerjee.