# Dr. Mohd. Javed Khan and another v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1349 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2011-11-01 - **Bench:** Amar Saran, Kalimullah Khan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-mohd-javed-khan-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42008 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Arms Act, cancellation of Fire Arm licence-on ground non-furnishing correct information relating to current address and permanent address-cancellationheld-proper-but can not bar fresh application with correct particulars. ## Text 3 All] Dr. Mohd. Javed Khan and another V. State of U.P. and others 1349 "His entire land was shown to be irrigated equivalent to 165.65 acres of land in terms of irrigated area." 11. Both the authorities below on this issue have simply referred that earlier the total area under consideration was 414.12 acres while in the notice dated 05.03.1983 it was 596.66 acres, meaning thereby some new land was added in the notice, hence redetermination was justified under Section 29 but have not pointed out whether the alleged new land satisfy requirement of Section 29(a) in addition to land he was already having after the enforcement of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, so as to justify redetermination under Section 29. 12. All other aspects of the matter would be available to be considered to authorities below only when it could have been shown by them that redetermination of ceiling area was justified having fallen under the specific conditions provided in Section 29 and only then the authorities below would have been justified to proceed further and not otherwise. On this issue the impugned orders are very cryptic, vague and show nonapplication of mind in correct perspective. 13. In view thereof the impugned orders cannot sustain. The writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 29.03.1985 and 12.08.1988 are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to Prescribed Authority to reexamine the same and pass a fresh order in the light of observations made above and in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. The fresh exercise shall be completed by Prescribed Authority within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.11.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN,J. THE HON'BLE KALIMULLAH KHAN,J. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 19888 of 2011 Dr. Mohd. Javed Khan and another ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Prateek J. Nagar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Devashish Mitra A.G.A. Constitution of India, Article 226Quashing of FIR-offence under Section 269, 308, 328 and 418 IPC-petitioner a doctor-running nursing Home-during course of operation in delivery of patient-due to gross negligence left the bundle of cotton in stomach-on complaint of serious pain-referred to S.G.P.G.I.-where found anus pipe putrefied-case law relied by petitioner not applicable-FIR disclosed prima facie offence against petitioners-no interference called far. Held: Para 5 In our view, prima facie this appears to be a case of gross negligence as no doctor who takes reasonable care would allow a piece of cotton to remain in the stomach after an operation. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the FIR does not disclose any prima facie offence against the petitioners. 1350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 (Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Saran,J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of an FIR dated 2.10.2011 registered at case crime No. 3440 of 2011, under sections 269, 308, 328 and 418 IPC, P.S. Baradari, district Bareilly. 3. Briefly allegations in the FIR were that the informant Smt. Sabiha Hamid had gone to the Nursing Home run by the petitioners for the purpose of her delivery. On 4.11.2011, the informant was discharged but she started complaining of great pain and thereafter the petitioners prescribed some medicines but she was again hospitalized between 16.2.2011 and 23.2.2011. Later on, she was refered to another Centre, where it was discovered that the petitioners had left a cotton bundle in her stomach at the time of operation as a result of which the anus pipe had putrefied which she needs to get operated at S.G.P.G.I. Lucknow. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and another; AIR 2005 SC 3180, Martin F. D' Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq AIR 2009 SC 2049, Bolam Vs. Friern Hospital Management Committee; 1957 (2) All. E.R. 118 and Mahadev Prasad Kaushik Vs. State of U.P 2009 AWC-1-453 has argued that gross negligence is not disclosed. It is contended that in the said decisions, it has been held that if the accused are properly qualified and if they act in a manner required to provide medical care on the standards of normal doctors, who exercise reasonable skills and during that act if any mis-happening occurs because of some defect in the equipment, the doctor cannot be put to blame. In the present case, the allegations were that during the course of operation, the petitioners have left a cotton bundle in the stomach of the victim causing her great pain which required a subsequent operation. 5. In our view, prima facie this appears to be a case of gross negligence as no doctor who takes reasonable care would allow a piece of cotton to remain in the stomach after an operation. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the FIR does not disclose any prima facie offence against the petitioners. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.11.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21674 of 2011 Arvind Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.P. Shukla Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Pankaj Rai (Addl.C.S.C.) C.S.C. Arms Act, cancellation of Fire Arm licence-on ground non-furnishing correct information relating to current address and permanent address-cancellationheld-proper-but can not bar fresh application with correct particulars.