Ambalal D. Bhatt Analysis
6. The learned Advocate contends that even if one batch number was given to several lots prepared on 121162 as was done in respect of batch no 211105, the evidence discloses that this was not an isolated case but such practice was uniformly followed in S. C. I. Ltd. for which the appellant could not alone be held liable. In the circumstances the noncompliance with the rules for giving a batch number to every lot does not make the act of the appellant the causa causans of the death of the persons who were injected with glucose saline prepared by him because it …show more content…
Bhatt vs The State Of Gujarat on 7 March, 1972
becomes plausible from two circumstances, firstly, that large quantities of lead nitrate were found in batch No. 211105 which could not have been from the sodium chloride of Sarabhai Merck as that has been tested and found to be free from this substance, secondly, that the materials issued by the stores which had to be tested before issuing them to the laboratory or to the injection department, have not been tested for a long time as admitted by the StoreKeeper. Vaghjibhai says that sodium chloride sent by him on 7662 was tested in the laboratory on 191162 and from 7662 to 231162 no sodium chloride was tested in the laboratory that he had sought instructions from R.M. Patel as to what he should do as raw materials were not tested in time and were supplied without testing, and that R.M. Patel had given instructions to the first accused. K.
K. Prabhakaran but even then the raw materials remained untested till 23.11.62 Exhibit 182 dated
4962 would show that Vaghjibhai is writing to R.M. Patel who was incharge of the