VVI. Must read judgement.
In Pakistan so far as criminal cases are concerned, Chapter 25 of the Police Rules, contains elaborate provisions for handling “police cases” as they are generally called. Rule 25.19(1) stipulates that in such cases the person required to be examined shall be produced before the highest medical authority available on the medical staff of the district. The persons requiring examination at the headquarters of a district shall be taken to the Civil Hospital and not to a branch dispensary. Similarly, in rural areas, where a hospital is accessible, medico-legal cases shall be sent there rather than a rural dispensary. Rule 25.19(2) prohibits the Medical Officers of the Irrigation Department from undertaking any medico-legal work but, in an emergency, the officer in-charge of District Board Dispensary may be called. Further, the Medical Officers should not go to the place of occurrence themselves except when there is real urgency and the injured person cannot be taken to the nearest dispensary or hospital. Rule 25.19(3) enjoins that the police officers cannot compel an injured person to submit for medical examination and he has a right to be examined privately at his own expense. The Medical Officers in-charge of hospital and dispensaries are required to report to the nearest police station within 24 hours all cases of serious injury and poisoning admitted by them for treatment. Rule 25.22 ordains that no medical officer shall examine a living woman involving those parts of her body which would violate her modesty unless she consents to such examination and a magistrate has permitted it through a written order. Rule 25.36 prescribes the procedure for postmortem. The legislature has enacted the Injured Persons (Medical Aid) Act, 2004, to facilitate medical aid and treatment of the injured persons before completion of medico-legal formalities as there existed misconception about law and procedure in this regard.
The Health Department, Government of the Punjab, has issued various instructions/SOPs from time to time for smooth conduct of the medico-legal work. These, inter alia, include:
i) Notification No. SO(H&D)6-82/89 dated 29.9.1989;
ii) Letter No. SO(H&D)6-1/90 dated 12.2.1990;
iii) Letter No. SO(H&D)6-1/90 dated 8.2.1992;
iv) Letter No. SO(H&D)6-1/90 dated 17.10.2001;
v) Letter No. SO(H&D)5-5/2002 dated 28.10.2002;
vi)Notification No. SO(H&D)5-5/2002 dated 19.11.2004;
vii)Letter No. SO(H&D)7-1/2018 dated 17.9.2018;
viii) Letter No. SO(H&D)7-2/19(MLC) dated 8.1.2020;
ix) Letter No. SO(H&D)7-2/2019 (MLC) dated 13.10.2020.
In our country litigants frequently accuse public authorities of malice and ill-will. Therefore, it is imperative that the courts examine every case with due care. A mere allegation that an action has been taken wrongly is not sufficient to establish that it is mala fide. It must be specific. In other words, mala fides must be pleaded with particularity. acceptable. Vague and general allegations are not In the present case the Petitioner has alleged that Respondent No.5 exerted political pressure on the DSMB to procure the impugned report but has not furnished any details. The allegation is, therefore, rejected being vague and unsubstantiated.
Writ Petition No. 27790 of 2021 Maratab Mukhtar Vs. Government of the Punjab etc
Date of hearing 03 . 03 .2022
 ...){kind=link}
0 Comments