Skip to main content

Doctors avoiding appearance in court can be coerced: Kerala HC

Coercive means can be adopted to enforce attendance of doctors in courts to give evidence if they fail to turn up despite receiving summons, said the Kerala high court.

The issue of doctors not appearing in courts to support medical evidence came up before a single bench of the high court while considering a petition related to an assault on a couple from Kattiparuthi in Tirur.

In a complaint filed by Beeran Kutty before the Tirur judicial first class magistrate, it was alleged that an eight-member gang of persons known to him trespassed into his house at 8.30am on December 6, 2002 and assaulted him and his wife. The couple suffered serious injuries and underwent treatment in a hospital, the complaint had said.

Police conducted an investigation and concluded that it was a false case. However, the petitioner filed a protest complaint before the magistrate court and adduced evidence. In order to prove that he suffered injuries, the petitioner took steps to summon the investigating officer of Valanchery police station to produce and prove the original wound certificate available in the case diary.

The move to summon the police officer was not allowed by the magistrate court, ruling that it is not needed to prove the wound certificate. This order was challenged in the high court.

Considering the case, justice S Siri Jagan held, "If the petitioner wanted to prove the wound certificate, the petitioner could have very well summoned the concerned doctor who issued the same and the accident-register cum wound-certificate kept in the hospital. The petitioner submits that the petitioner took steps to summon the doctor and the doctor did not appear. Even if that is correct, the petitioner is not without remedy insofar as he can enforce attendance of the doctor before the court by coercive means which the petitioner has not done."

Upholding the magistrate's denial of permission to summon the police officer, the high court held, "As rightly pointed out by the learned magistrate, summoning of the investigating officer and the wound certificate will not in any way help the petitioner to prove the wound certificate."

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2014-01-15/kochi/46223398_1_high-court-petitioner-case-diary

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more