MOHINI KAPUR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was posted as Medical Jurist in the Government Hospital at Bundi in the year 1985. THE complainant Chhote Khan was involved in some quarrel with others and he, his son Naeem and Nephew Iqbal were injured on 17. 6. 85 THEir injuries were examined by the petitioner. On 186. 85, the complainant Chhote Khan contacted the petitioner for obtaining duplicate copies of the injury reports. THE petitioner took Rs. 10/- by way of fees and supplied the duplicate copies of injury reports of Chhote Khan and Naeem. THE ease of Chhote Khan is that the petitioner asked him to make an extra payment of Rs 30/- and only then the copy of injury report of Iqbal would be spplied. Upon this, Chhote Khan arranged for setting up a trap and on the next day the petitioner was trapped wher he accepted the sum otr8. 30afrom Chhote Khan On this basis a charge under Section 161 IPC and 5 (1) (d) and. (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 has been framed against the petitioner. THE allegation is that the petitioner demanded and accepted an extra sum of Rs. 30/- by way of bribe for issuing the duplicate copy of injury report of the injuries of Iqbal.
(2.) THE order framing the charge has been challenged in this petition. It has been contended that even on the basis of the statement of Dr. Deora Superintendent SMS Hospital Jaipur, as recorded during the investigation, it has come out that the practice is that a sum of Rs. 20/- is charged for issuing copy of one injury report on urgent basis and Rs. 10/- is charged for issuing a copy of the injury report in the ordinary course. He has clarified that urgent basis means isuance of copy within 24 hours. According to his statement, the petitioner could have charged this amount for performing the nonprofessional duty of issuing copies and when he accepted Rs. 40/- tor two copies then it cannot be-said that he has charged any thing extra. Reiving upon Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Medical Officers' Fees Rules, it has been contended that the Medical Officer can charge fees for non-professional duties and the same has to be distributed in the proportion of 3 : 2 between the State and the Medical Officer respectively. It is also contended that The share of the Government is deposited in lump sum alter every few months. I have gone through the record of the case. One of the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor is that there is no provision for charging fees for issuing copies of the injury reports and this fact has been mentioned the order granting sanction for the prosecution of the accused petitioner. There is no rule but still fees is collected for giving duplicate copies and the practice of accepting fees for this purpose has become a regular practice as stated by Dr. Deora. The State Govt. should take up this matter and either issue direction that no fees can be charged for issuing copies of injury reports or should provide for the rate on which charges can be made. Sitting as a spectator even after knowing that the fees is regularly charged for giving duplicate copies of the injury reports can only mean that the Govt. has given consent to the acceptance of fees for rendering this service and I have to proceed on this basis. For showing that the petitioner demanded some amount by way of bride, the prosecution has to show that he has demanded and accepted over and above the normal prevalent practice. However, Chhote Khan has stated that he gave Rs 10/- to the petitioner who issued two copies of the injury reports but said that he would have to bring another Rs. 30/- and would have to pay extra fees for the copy of the injury report of Iqbal. This means that the petitioner demanded Rs 40/- for the injury report of Chhote Khan and Naeem and extra for the injury report of Iqbal. If this was the total amount asked for then it can be said that it was covered by Urgent fees, which the Medical Officers have been charging for this purpose. Hence, it can be said that the prosecution has not been able to place material on record on the basis of which it could be said that the petitioner demanded and accepted some amount by way of bribe so proceedings should be taken against him At the stage of framing of charge the case nut forth by the accused can also be looked into and considering all the circumstances, ft could be, said that there is no ground for proceeding against the accused. I would also like to observe that the evidence in the case discloses that the Medical Officers are not provided with any receipt books from where they could issue receipts and also there is no provision as to how the share of the State in the fees collected by the Medical Officers is to be deposited. Should it be done on monthly basis or in some other way, depends upon the sweet will of the person concerned. It can be said that so far as non-professional duties' rend-ered by the Medical Officers in the Hospital itself are concerned there should be some provision of first depositing the money in the accounts section or some other counter for this purpose and then obtaining receipt. Only then the service should be rendered by the Officer. The State Government should look into this matter and issue appropriate directions as all these matters are of importance so far the administration of the hospital is concerned.
(3.) AS discussed above, this Misc. Petition is accepted and the charge framed against the petitioner is quashed. He is discharged of the offence under Sec. 161 IPC and 5 (1) (d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The record of the case be sent immediately. .;