Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 22.8.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT) No.2, Pali in Criminal Revision No.5/2009 whereby he has affirmed the order dated 13.5.1992 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 304A IPC in Criminal Regular Case No.370/1986 in relation to F.I.R. No.370/1986 of P.S. Kotwali, Pali.
(3.) Succinctly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant misc. petition are that a complaint was filed b y the respondent no.2/complainant against the petitioner in the Court of C.J.M., Pali with the allegations that his son Jagdish aged 2 years was suffering from a cleft in the lip since birth. It is alleged that the child was admitted at Bangar Hospital, Pali on 4.6.1986 for surgery after taking the opinion of Dr.S.P. Purohit, Surgeon of the said hospital. The operation was scheduled to be performed on 5.6.1986. On 5.6.1986, the child was taken into the operation the after (OT) and thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioner, who is an anesthesian, made the complainant and his father Umed Singh to sit outside the OT and for the purpose of operation to be performed on the child, the child was administered anesthesia by the petitioner. It is alleged that thereafter the petitioner came out of the OT and started talking to a lady. Th e complainant and his father requested the petitioner to remain in the OT but the petitioner paid no heed to their request. It is further alleged that Dr.S.P. Purohit who was to conduct the surgery, proceeded towards the OT and called the petitioner on which the petitioner again told the surgeon that the operation had to be performed by the surgeon and h e had done his job. When the surgeon went in the OT, he saw that the child had passed away on the operation table itself. It is further alleged that the surgeon told the petitioner in the presence of the first informant and his father that the child had expired due to excess administration of anesthesia.;