Metropolitan Magistrate V.K. Bansal had issued a bailable warrant against Dr D.P. Ray of Bara Hindu Hospital on July 13 after considering the contentions made by the local police.

Bansal, in his order, had said that Ray had committed an offence under Section 218 (public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save a person from punishment or property from forfeiture) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Ray was on duty on the night of June 10/11 when three youths were brought to the casualty by the local police for medical examination. Sub-Inspector Jarnail Singh told Ray that Michael Alexander, Hem Raj Sharma and Billu David had consumed alcohol and created a nuisance in the Ashoka Market area of north Delhi.

Ray, however, found that none of the youths were under the influence of alcohol. Only ``Alexander is smelling of alcohol but is not under the influence of alcohol,'' wrote Ray in his report.

After Bansal's order and the subsequent furore among the medical fraternity, Ray filed a petition in the Delhi High Court through his lawyers Ashok Aggarwal and Anil Aggarwal.

Justice D.K. Jain, who heard the petition and issued an order last Thursday, said: ``It appears that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Bansal) had taken the matter a bit casually, with the result that unnecessary embarrassment and harassment has been caused to the petitioner (Ray)''.

Jain added: ``Though the petitioner has since been discharged and the controversy emanating from the July 13 order has come to an end, it needs to be observed that the learned metropolitan magistrate while passing the order should have acted more carefully''.

Ray's lawyers had earlier argued in court that Bansal's order was passed ``ignoring the fact that the accused (Alexander, Hem Raj and Billu) were tried for offences under Sections 92/93/97 of the Delhi Police Act and that has nothing to do with whether the accused were under the influence of liquor''.

Sections 92, 93 and 97 of the Delhi Police Act pertain to ``obstructing or annoying passengers in the street, misbehaviour with intent to provoke a breach of peace and punishment for such offences with fines up to Rs 100 or, in default, imprisonment for eight days respectively''. In his petition filed before the high court, Ray pointed out that Sub-Inspector Jarnail Singh made no bones about ``his difference of opinion'' with the medical examination and insisted that the Medico-Legal Cases (MLCs) should state that all the three -- Alexander, Hem Raj and Billu David were in an inebriated condition.

Bansal's order, which found Ray had committed an offence under Section 218 of the IPC, considered the statements of Jarnail Singh and Head Constable Mahender Singh. Both had claimed that Ray had refused to take blood samples of the accused.

``This shows that Dr D.P. Ray had deliberately prepared the MLC of Billu David incorrectly, mentioning that he was not smelling of alcohol,'' Bansal said in his order.

In the high court, Ray's lawyers stated: ``The order has been passed ignoring the fact that the contents of the MLC are based on mere observations and opinion of an individual (Ray) and difference of opinion between two persons cannot attract the provisions of section 218 of the IPC''.