📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This Supreme Court case involved a doctor, Dr. Samina Matloob, who was charged after a new-born baby died during delivery, allegedly due to her negligence. An FIR was registered against her and two others under Section 322/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (offences relating to causing death without intent to kill). She sought pre-arrest bail, which was refused by the lower court and the Lahore High Court, so she approached the Supreme Court.
Her lawyer argued there was no real evidence of negligence, that the complaint was filed two months after the incident, and that under Section 29 of the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010, such medical negligence matters should fall under the Commission's jurisdiction rather than being investigated or prosecuted under ordinary criminal law. The state's prosecutor did not contest these points.
The Supreme Court noted that the two-month delay in reporting the case, combined with the police's failure to exhume the baby's body to gather medical evidence, meant crucial evidence was lost. It also agreed that such matters, involving a registered healthcare facility, should be handled by the Healthcare Commission rather than ordinary criminal courts. Since the investigation itself had also cleared the petitioner, the Court confirmed her pre-arrest bail, converting her petition into an appeal and allowing it.
The case highlights how delays and poor investigation can undermine prosecutions, and clarifies that medical negligence cases involving registered healthcare providers may fall outside normal criminal law under special legislation.
یہ سپریم کورٹ کا مقدمہ ایک ڈاکٹر، ڈاکٹر ثمینہ مطلوب سے متعلق تھا، جن پر ڈیلیوری کے دوران ایک نوزائیدہ بچے کی موت کے بعد مبینہ غفلت کا الزام عائد کیا گیا تھا۔ ان کے اور دو دیگر افراد کے خلاف پاکستان پینل کوڈ کی دفعہ 322/34 (بغیر قتل کی نیت کے موت کا باعث بننے سے متعلق جرائم) کے تحت ایف آئی آر درج کی گئی تھی۔ انہوں نے حفاظتی ضمانت کی درخواست دی، جسے ماتحت عدالت اور لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے مسترد کر دیا، جس پر انہوں نے سپریم کورٹ سے رجوع کیا۔
ان کے وکیل نے دلیل دی کہ غفلت کا کوئی ٹھوس ثبوت موجود نہیں، شکایت واقعے کے دو ماہ بعد درج کرائی گئی، اور پنجاب ہیلتھ کیئر کمیشن ایکٹ 2010 کی دفعہ 29 کے تحت ایسے طبی غفلت کے معاملات عام فوجداری قانون کے تحت تفتیش یا مقدمہ چلانے کے بجائے کمیشن کے دائرہ اختیار میں آنے چاہئیں۔ ریاست کے پراسیکیوٹر نے
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2018 SC 548 [Appellate Jurisdiction] Present: Ejaz Afzal Khan & Maqbool Baqar , JJ. DR. SAMINA MATLOOB--Petitioner versus STATE through P.G. Punjab and another--Respondents Criminal Petition No. 1187 of 2017, decided on 3.1.2018. (Against the order datod 30.10.2017 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench passed in Crl . Misc. No. 2927-B of 2017-BWP.) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 322 & 34--Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010--Bail before arrest confirmed--New-born baby died during delivery--Negligence--Domain of Commission--Delay of two months--Police investigating case did not apply for disinterment of body of newborn-babe to collect medical evidence in support of allegation--Belated charge and failure on part of investigating agency to invastigate case on proper lines, however, resulted in loss of evidence--Even if there was any, incident in this case could not have been investigated by local police or prosecuted under normal penal law of land--Report of investigating agency exonerating petitioner would constitute yet another circumstance making out a case for confirmation of pre-arrest bail--Bail was granted. [Pp. 549 & 550] A & B M. Asif Saeed Rana , ASC and Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, AOR for Petitioner. Rana Abdul Majeed , Addl. P.G. Pb ., Rana M. Anwar, SSP, Multan and Mansoor , DSP, Multan for State. Nemo for Complainant Date of hearing: 3.1.2018. Order Ejaz Afzal Khan, J.-- Petitioner who is charged in a case registered against her and two others under Section 322/34 PPC vide FIR No. 212 dated 15.12.2016 at P.S. City District Lodhran when failed to get the concession of pre-arrest bail from the lower forum as well as the High Court moved this petition mainly on the grounds that there is absolutely no evidence on the record to show that the new-born babe died during the course of delivery on account of negligence of the petitioner; that belated report of the occurrence goes a long way to belie the prosecution version and that in view of the provision contained under Section 29 of the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010 the matter lying within the domain of the Commission could neither be investigated nor prosecuted under the normal penal law of the land.
2. The learned Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab appearing on behalf of the State did not dispute the assertions made by the learned ASC for the petitioner.
3. We have carefully gone through the record and considered the submissions of the learned ASC for the petitioner as well as the learned Addl. P. G. Punjab for the State.
4. The record reveals that the incident was reported after two months of the occurrence. The police investigating the case did not apply for disinterment of the body of the newborn-babe to collect medical evidence in support of the allegation. Belated charge and failure on the part of the investigating agency to investigate the case on proper lines, however, resulted in the loss of evidence. Even if there was any, the incident in this case could not have been investigated by the local police or prosecuted under the normal penal law of the land in view of the provision contained in Section 29 of the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act. The Additional Prosecutor representing the State has not disputed the above stated legal position nor has he disputed that the hospital providing healthcare service is registered in terms of Section 13(4) of the Act. The report of the investigating agency exonerating the petitioner would constitute yet another circumstance making out a case for confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
5. For the reasons discussed above, we convert this petition into appeal, allow if, set aside the impugned judgment and confirm the ad-interim bail granted to the petitioner on 6.10.2017. (M.M.R.) Appeal allowed