Case Note & Summary
The present group of revision applications arises from a common order passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, rejecting the applications preferred by the applicants seeking condonation of delay in filing discharge applications under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and discharge from the offences alleged. The applicants are Directors, Non-Executive Director, Chief Executive Officer, and medical practitioners associated with Khyati Hospital, Ahmedabad. The prosecution case is that the applicants, in alleged connivance with one another, entered into a criminal conspiracy to derive pecuniary advantage under the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY). It is alleged that patients were induced to undergo angiography and angioplasty procedures, including implantation of stents, without medical necessity; that misleading or false medical records were prepared to generate fear and obtain consent; and that two patients died as a result. The applicants were charged under Sections 318(4), 319, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The trial court framed charges against them. The applicants then filed applications for discharge under Section 250 BNSS, which were rejected by the trial court on the ground that the applications were not maintainable after framing of charge. The High Court, in revision, examined the correctness of the trial court's order. The court held that an application for discharge under Section 250 BNSS is maintainable even after framing of charge, if the material on record does not disclose a prima facie case. The court further held that mere association with a hospital or professional negligence does not constitute criminal conspiracy. There must be specific evidence of a meeting of minds and intentional participation in the unlawful agreement. Vicarious liability is not applicable in criminal law without specific role attributed to each accused. The court found that the prosecution had not produced any specific evidence showing the involvement of the applicants in the alleged conspiracy. The allegations were general in nature and did not attribute any specific act to each applicant. The court also noted that the applicants were not directly involved in the medical procedures or the preparation of records. The court allowed the revision applications, set aside the trial court's order, and discharged the applicants from all offences. The court directed that the applicants be released from bail bonds.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Discharge under Section 250 BNSS - Maintainability after framing of charge - The court held that an application for discharge under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is maintainable even after framing of charge, if the material on record does not disclose a prima facie case against the accused. The revisional court can examine the correctness of the order framing charge and discharge the accused if no case is made out. (Paras 12-15) B) Criminal Conspiracy - Section 318(4) BNSS (Section 120B IPC) - Requirement of meeting of minds - Mere association with a hospital or professional negligence does not constitute criminal conspiracy. There must be specific evidence of a meeting of minds and intentional participation in the unlawful agreement. Vicarious liability is not applicable in criminal law without specific role attributed to each accused. (Paras 16-20) C) Criminal Law - Vicarious Liability - Directors and Officers - Directors, CEO, and doctors of a company cannot be held vicariously liable for offences requiring mens rea, such as cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy, unless there is specific evidence of their active involvement or knowledge. The court distinguished between civil liability and criminal culpability. (Paras 21-25) D) Medical Negligence - Criminal Conspiracy - Distinction - Allegations of unnecessary medical procedures and false records may amount to professional negligence or civil wrong, but do not automatically constitute criminal conspiracy. The prosecution must prove intentional deception and dishonest intention beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 26-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicants, being directors, CEO, and doctors of a hospital, can be discharged from offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and IT Act in connection with alleged fraudulent claims under PM-JAY scheme, in absence of specific evidence of their involvement in the conspiracy.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision applications, set aside the trial court's order, and discharged the applicants from all offences. The applicants were directed to be released from bail bonds.
Law Points
- Criminal conspiracy requires meeting of minds
- vicarious liability not applicable in criminal law without specific role
- discharge under Section 250 BNSS is maintainable even after framing of charge if no prima facie case
- professional negligence not criminal conspiracy
