GARG, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dt. 7. 9. 2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Sujangarh by which contents for offence u/sec. 304a I. P. C. were read over to the accused petitioner.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: i) On 16. 2. 99, one Shrawan Kumar lodged a written report with the Police Station Sujangarh stating that her sister Luni (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) developed labour pain in Gantiya Ke Rahi Ki Dhani and thereafter she was brought to Government Hospital, Bidasar at 10 a. m. and where she was admitted as indoor patient and where attending doctor advised that the patient should be shifted to Sujangarh and thereafter the deceased was brought by Shrawan Kumar to Sujangarh at the residence of the accused petitioner who was posted as Junior Specialist, Government Hospital, Sujangarh and child was delivered to the deceased at 5 p. m. but later on the condition of the deceased become serious one as as per the advice, she was shifted to Rathi Hospital at about 5. 30 p. m. and body of the child was left at the house and at about 6. 30 p. m. the deceased died. Thus, the case of the complainant is that due to negligence of the accused petitioner both the child as well as her sister died. On this report FIR No. 25/99 for offence under Sec. 304a I. P. C. was registered and investigation commenced and after usual investigation police submitted challan on 15. 7. 1999 against the accused petitioner for offence under Sec. 304a I. P. C. That the learned Magistrate took cognizance for offence u/sec. 304a I. P. C. During trial, an application was moved on behalf of the accused petitioner under Sec. 197 Cr. P. C. with a prayer that since at the time of treating the deceased, the accused petitioner was performing the official duties, therefore without sanction from the State Government as required under Sec. 197 Cr. P. C. no criminal proceedings can be taken against the accused petitioner, therefore the cognizance taken against the accused petitioner should be quashed. That application was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 7. 9. 2001.
(3.) IT may be stated here that against the order dated 7. 9. 2001, the learned counsel for the accused petitioner has filed a separate petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. and the same is pending in this Court and the impugned order dated 7. 9. 2001 by which the learned Magistrate rejected the application of accused petitioner filed under Sec. 197 Cr. P. C. is not under challenge before me in this revision petition. On the same day i. e. on 7. 9. 2001, the learned Judicial Magistrate read over the contents of offence under Sec. 304a I. P. C. to the accused petitioner and the same were denied by the accused petitioner and this order dated 7. 9. 2001 by which contents of offence under Sec. 304a I. P. C. were read over has been challenged in this Court through present revision. In this revision petition, following submissions have been raised by the learned counsel for the accused petitioner:- i) That the impugned order dated 7. 9. 2001 of framing charge against the accused petitioner is illegal. ii) That the case of the petitioner comes under General Exceptions as provided in Sec. 88 of the I. P. C. iii) That the accused petitioner gave best treatment which was available at Sujangarh and she has not caused death of the deceased by doing any rash or negligent act, as treatment was given for the benefit of the deceased in good faith. iv) That the petitioner was not allowed any hearing before framing of charge which violates the principles of natural justice and thus, it has prayed that the order dated 7. 9. 2001 be quashed. ;