' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--- Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether there was failure to deal with the question whether criminal proceedings should be initiated against the respondent as the lapse on the part of the respondent had resulted in the miscarriage of justice.
2. The appellant was detained by an order of the District Magistrate. It was challenged by a Habeas Corpus Petition successfully. There was an allegation that during the detention the appellant was physically harmed by the Police. The High Court called for a report from the Jail authorities and the medical officer attached to the Jail. The respondent, who was the doctor, submitted a report on 27- 4-1986 that there were no marks of injury. The complainant persisted that there were injuries whereupon a Medical Board was constituted which examined him on 30-4-1986 and found nine injuries all of about seven to nine days old. On this a notice issued to the respondent why contempt proceedings be not started against him. An application was also filed by the appellant for initiating proceedings under sections 193, 197 and 199, P.P.C., for tendering false evidence and submitting false statement of facts. Both these matters appear to have been disposed of by the impugned judgment, of the High Court dated 28-4-1987. The apology being unconditional and the surrender to the Court being complete was accepted and the notice for contempt was discharged. Nothing appears to have been said with regard to proceedings under sections 193, 197 and 199, P.P.C.
3. The appellant in person contended that in treating the apology to be _ unconditional and the surrender to the Court to be complete, the Court has omitted to take note of the submissions made by the respondent in reply to the C.M. No,364 of 1986, paragrahps 1 and 2 wherein he has pleaded that his report was correct and that of the Medical Board was incorrect. Besides, according to him, the Court has not considered at all the desirability of proceeding against him under the penal laws of the land on account of deliberate attempt to mislead the Court to divert the course of justice and to bring into disrepute the Court and its proceedings.
4. We have examined the impugned order of the High Court and fmd that the apology tendered by the respondent by his reply dated 11-5-1986 has alone been considered. Neither the facts pleaded by the respondent in his further submission in reply to the application made by the appellant and contained in document dated 22-9-1986 have been considered, particularly its para. 1 and the grounds taken therein has no reference nor the application filed under section 476 for prosecuting the respondent.
5. We consider that this aspect of the case requires attention of the High Court initially and unless that is done, we are not in a position to deal adequately and fairly with the matter in issue.
Therefore, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the proceedings are remanded to the High Court to reconsider the matter in the light of the material brought on record and to decide the matter afresh.