A Mumbai Sessions Court last month hearing an appeal, has ordered the case in a kidney transplant racket to proceed with the inclusion of Dr P Ravichandran, a nephrologist who was discharged in 2011
A Mumbai Sessions Court last month hearing an appeal, has ordered the case in a kidney transplant racket to proceed with the inclusion of Dr P Ravichandran, a nephrologist who was discharged in 2011.
Pic/ThinkStock
ADVERTISEMENT
Ravichandran, a Chennai-based doctor, was discharged by a Magistrate court on October 15, 2011 despite charges of 120(B) (Conspiracy), 342 (wrongful confinement), 420 (Cheating), 465 (forgery), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 471(Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record), 506 (criminal intimidation) with 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of Indian Penal Code and various sections of Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, against him.
A petition was filed by the Crime Branch before the Sessions Court on the grounds that the order passed by Magistrate court is bad in law, it has failed to take into account the forgery, cheating and conspiracy of Ravichandran, and it has lost sight of the documents seized from hospital authorities about his involvement. The grounds also mention the court had not taken into consideration that Ravichandran had accepted Rs 2 lakh and Rs 20 lakh from a kidney recipient’s husband, Natubhai Soni, and distributed the money among other accused – there are six accused besides him. The court had not taken into consideration that Ravichandran played a major role and he was involved in the removal of human organs without authority for commercial dealing. It also failed to consider that there is a chain of accused persons.
The prosecution while arguing had put forth all the documentary evidence and witness statements recorded by the investigating officer, which included an official from the hospital where the kidney transplants took place.
Judge S V Ranpise, while passing the order observed, “I hold that there is manifest error on the point of law committed by the lower court which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice.”
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
