# R. L. Kholi, for the v. C. Mahajan and

- **Citation:** [1973] 2 S.C.R. 1
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-08-30
- **Bench:** J. M. Shelat, Acting C.J, 1. D. Dua, H. R. Khanna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/r-l-kholi-for-the-v-c-mahajan-and-5835
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Code vf Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sec. 464 "Reason to believe that
the accused i:; vf unsound mind and consequently incapable of making hi.J
clefence"-Belief must be of reasonable person--Enquiry into the facts by
a Magistrate of unsoundness is mandatory and to be held at threshold be~
fore proceeding with the case.
The appellant was charged of committing the murder at Kulu.
His
ad,·ocate made an application to the Mag1strate oi Kulu ufs Sec. 464 of
the Code oi Criminal Procedure stating that the accused has symptoms of
impa.1rmcnt of cognative facult cs oi mind and otherwise of an abnormal
behaviour, with a p. ayer to remove the appellant to the mental hospital.
The Trial Magistrate came to the conciu.sion that the appellant was ·1ot
"Ilfering from unsoundness of mind, on tl;e basis of the application
made by the appe.lant lor remitting the money seized from his person to
h;s mother and on the basis of replies to the question put to the appellant
regardin5 the supply of copies of documents relied on by the p·osecut.on.
A revision
application fi.ed by the appellant against the re;ection of the
application was dismissed by the Sc'5ions Court. On rev;s:on to the High
Court, the learned si1gle Judge directed that the
appellant should
be
exa1nined and kept u1der observatio11 in the· Snowdown Hospital, Simla,
\\:hii::h is a general hosp tal.
After the exami 'ation by two psychistricts
at Simla hospital, they recommended the e~amination c>f the appe11ant in
the proper mental hospital.
As the recommendation was not carried out
the appellant moved the High Court under section 561 (A) of the Code
for the impkmeotation of the earlier order. The High Court clarified the
earlier order and rejected the application ufs 561 (A) holdhg that the
order was complied with.
On an application for Teview, the High Court
observed that whether the recommendalons of the s:mla Hospital should
or should not be fo'lowed lay within the powers of the trial Magistrate.
The trial Magistrate misunderstood the order to mean that no prelimi 1 arv
enquiry, as required by Sec. 464 was necessary and committed the appellz...,t's case for trial by Sessions Court. The committal order was chal'enged by the appellant by way of revision in the Sessions Cou't, and then in
the Hi~h Court.
The High Court held that the committing Magistrate
had sufficient material to believe that the appellartt was not suffering from
unsoundness of mind and therefore it was not necessary for him to act
under Sec. 464.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD : The words "reason to believe" mean a belief which a reasonable occson would entertain on facts before him. The burden was on the
appellant to establish that he was suffering from the ur-..ound-ess of
mind. The provisions regarding the enquiry in the unsoundness of mind
are mandatory and the Magistrate is bound to e"quire before he proceeds
with the case.
Such enqu'ry is to be held at the threshold.
The trial
Magist'ate did not hold such enquiry and did not call uoon the apoel'ant
to establish the mental infirmity.
The proper course fpr the Magistrate
in v;ew of the direcfons of the Hi~h Court and the provisions of Sec. 464
was to send the annellant to the mental hospital for observations. [9 A]
2-L348Sup.C.l.f73
2
SUPREME COUllT llPOllTS
[1973) 2 s.c.1..
Boeh tile c:ommittal order and tho High Court'• order were set aside
A
and the trial Magistrate waa di .. ected to bold an enquiry u/s 464 and give
opportunity to the appellant to produce the evidence regarding his un:
IDUlldnem of mind.
CKIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 279 of J 971.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
September 17, 1971 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court at Simla
in Ctiminal Revision No. 17 of 1971.
R. L. Kholi, for the appellant.
V. C. Mahajan and R. N, Sachthey, for the respondent.

## Text

A
B
D
,.
r.
F
If
DR. IAI SHANKER (LUNATIC)
I
(through Vijay Shanker brother guardian)
....
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
August 30, 1972
1
[J. M. SHELAT, ACTING C.J., 1. D. DUA AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ]
Code vf Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sec. 464 "Reason to believe that
the accused i:; vf unsound mind and consequently incapable of making hi.J
clefence"-Belief must be of reasonable person--Enquiry into the facts by
a Magistrate of unsoundness is mandatory and to be held at threshold be~
fore proceeding with the case.
The appellant was charged of committing the murder at Kulu.
His
ad,·ocate made an application to the Mag1strate oi Kulu ufs Sec. 464 of
the Code oi Criminal Procedure stating that the accused has symptoms of
impa.1rmcnt of cognative facult cs oi mind and otherwise of an abnormal
behaviour, with a p. ayer to remove the appellant to the mental hospital.
The Trial Magistrate came to the conciu.sion that the appellant was ·1ot
"Ilfering from unsoundness of mind, on tl;e basis of the application
made by the appe.lant lor remitting the money seized from his person to
h;s mother and on the basis of replies to the question put to the appellant
regardin5 the supply of copies of documents relied on by the p·osecut.on.
A revision
application fi.ed by the appellant against the re;ection of the
application was dismissed by the Sc'5ions Court. On rev;s:on to the High
Court, the learned si1gle Judge directed that the
appellant should
be
exa1nined and kept u1der observatio11 in the· Snowdown Hospital, Simla,
\\:hii::h is a general hosp tal.
After the exami 'ation by two psychistricts
at Simla hospital, they recommended the e~amination c>f the appe11ant in
the proper mental hospital.
As the recommendation was not carried out
the appellant moved the High Court under section 561 (A) of the Code
for the impkmeotation of the earlier order. The High Court clarified the
earlier order and rejected the application ufs 561 (A) holdhg that the
order was complied with.
On an application for Teview, the High Court
observed that whether the recommendalons of the s:mla Hospital should
or should not be fo'lowed lay within the powers of the trial Magistrate.
The trial Magistrate misunderstood the order to mean that no prelimi 1 arv
enquiry, as required by Sec. 464 was necessary and committed the appellz...,t's case for trial by Sessions Court. The committal order was chal'enged by the appellant by way of revision in the Sessions Cou't, and then in
the Hi~h Court.
The High Court held that the committing Magistrate
had sufficient material to believe that the appellartt was not suffering from
unsoundness of mind and therefore it was not necessary for him to act
under Sec. 464.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD : The words "reason to believe" mean a belief which a reasonable occson would entertain on facts before him. The burden was on the
appellant to establish that he was suffering from the ur-..ound-ess of
mind. The provisions regarding the enquiry in the unsoundness of mind
are mandatory and the Magistrate is bound to e"quire before he proceeds
with the case.
Such enqu'ry is to be held at the threshold.
The trial
Magist'ate did not hold such enquiry and did not call uoon the apoel'ant
to establish the mental infirmity.
The proper course fpr the Magistrate
in v;ew of the direcfons of the Hi~h Court and the provisions of Sec. 464
was to send the annellant to the mental hospital for observations. [9 A]
2-L348Sup.C.l.f73
2
SUPREME COUllT llPOllTS
[1973) 2 s.c.1..
Boeh tile c:ommittal order and tho High Court'• order were set aside
A
and the trial Magistrate waa di .. ected to bold an enquiry u/s 464 and give
opportunity to the appellant to produce the evidence regarding his un:
IDUlldnem of mind.
CKIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 279 of J 971.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
September 17, 1971 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court at Simla
in Ctiminal Revision No. 17 of 1971.
R. L. Kholi, for the appellant.
V. C. Mahajan and R. N, Sachthey, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHELAT, ACTING C.J.-The appellant was charged of having
committed on April 24, 1970 the murder of a lady doctor, Dr.
Vaidya, at KuJu. On May 4, 1970, he was arrested on the aforesaid
allegation.
On May 9, 1970, his advocate made an application
before the Magistrate, Kulu under s. 464 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898. The application stated that the advocate had
interviewed the appellant in the judicial lock-up where he was
detained and found him talking incoherently and showing symptoms
of impairment of the cognative faculties of mind and otherwise of an abnormal behaviour.
The applicant prayed that he
should be removed to the mental hospital at Amritsar for ascertaining whether he was in a position to make his defonce. Since there
was no response to the said application, .a similar application was
again addressed to the Magistrate on June 3, 1970. To this application were annexed three medical certificates by Dr. B. N. Sur,
Dr. Pathak and Dr. K. P. Singh respectively dated May 10, 1970,
May 15, 1970 and May 9, 1970 all the thr~c~rtifying that even
as a medical student the appellant had shown signs suggesting
unsoundness of mind. In thf meantime the case was transferred
to the Court · of the District Magistrate,
Bilaspur.
On
September 11,
1970, the appellant's advocate once again
filed an application for medical checK up setting out therein
various instances displaying abnormal and strange conduct
on the part of the appellant right from his student days,
as aim during the proceedings in the Court on August 31,
1970 when the appellant, amongst other things, proclaimed that
he was Lord Vishnu and the ruler of Delhi.
By his order dated
September 23, 1970, the Magistrate rejected the
applic'ation
stating that he had no reasons to doubt the appellant's sanity and
decided to proceed with the committal proceedings. In this order
the Magistrate· cited an application made by the appellant on July
26. 1970 for remitting to his mother the mdney seiLed by the
police from his person at the time of his arrest, as also his replies
B
c
D
E
G
H
A
8
c
D
·~
G
H
JAi 9HAMKIJ. v. HIMACB\L Pl.ADI! .. (Shldl, Ag. C./.)
3
to the questions put to him if copies of documents relied on by the
prosecution were supplied to him under s. 173 of the Code. This
was done with a view to show that the appellall't understood the
proceedings and their nature. Against this order a revision appli·
cation was filed before the Sessions Judge. That was dismissed
by an order dated November 20, 1970. A further revision against
that dismissal was then filed before the High Court.
By his order dated December 23, 1970,
Rangarajan, J..
ordered that "the larger interests of justice require that the accused
should be examined for his mental condition and thll'l such an
inquiry should not in all fairness, and in order to be directly useful, be still further delayed". The learned Judge directed that the
appellant should be produced before the Medical Superintendent,
Snowdon Hospital, Simla for his examination by a competent doc·
tor or doctors by keeping him in observation for such ume as might
be considered necessary. He further directed that the Superinten·
dent should forward a report of the result of such examination to
the committing magistrate "who will act according to law in the
light of such report".
Pursuant to the said order, the Superintendent of Snowdon
Hospital sent his report dated January 7, 1971 to the Magistrate
stating that the appellant had been examined by Dr. V. K. Mudgil,
Assistant Professor of Psychistry, Himachal Pradesh Medical College and Hospital, who reported that from a mere examination
of the appellant in Psychistric Out Patient Department it
was
difficult to give an opinion on the appellant's mental condition.
and therefore, recommended that he should be sent to some mental
hospital for observation .. To an inquiry by the Magistrate, dated
January 11, 1971, the Snowdon Hospital authorities replied on
January 19, 1971 that the hospital had no provision for admission
as in-door patients and care of alleged lunatics and once again
suggested that the appellant should be sent to a mental hospital.
It appears that 3't the instance of the committing magistrate the
appellant was thereafter admitted in the Snowdon Hospital as an
in-door patient. The report of the Superinten4ent dated March
26, 1971 shows tha't he was examined by the Psychisttist of the
Hospital and the Assistant Professor of Psvchistry, both of whom
advised the appellant's admission to a mental hospital for further
examination since a final opinion could only be given on the basis
of ps .. :hological tests done by a qualified
clinical psychologist
with a trained and experienced nursing staff.
The recommendations contained in these reports were not
carried out.
The appellant, therefore, through his brother, filed
an application in the High Court under s. 561A of the Code praying for implementation of the order of Rangarajan, J.
By its
j
•
IUPUWB C:OUl.T UPOllTS
(1973] 2 S.C.L
order dated March 30, 1971, the High Court observed that the
said committal proceedings were pending for a considerable time,
and referring to tne sai'd order of Rangajaran, J., observed that it
was ri.ot for the High Court to intervene at an interlocutory >tage
and that in any event the Snowdon Hospital had examined tne
appeUant as uirected by Rangarajan, J., and made its report, and
that therefore, nothing further remained to be done.
The High
Court ordered that that report should go to the committing Magistrate and it would be for that Magistralj: to decide what order
should be passed on the case.
The High Court further observed
that it was not proper for the High Court to assume the Magistrat~'s jurisdiction, and that the Magistrate would without doubt
proceed in accordance with Jaw. If he found a prima facie case,
the case should be sent for trial to the court of competent juris·
diction which would decide on the plea taken by the appellant.
The committing Magistrate had only to see whether there was a
prima facie case and the truthfulness of the plea was for the trial
court to determine.
The appellant, through his
brother,
then
filed an application for reviewing the said order.
On April 5,
1971, that application was rejected on the ground that the earlier
order was clear and unambiguous, a!ld that there was no ground
to review or revise the same.
While" dismissing the said applicationJhe High Court observed once again that it was for the c.'.>mmitting ·Magistrate to pass a suitable order under s. 464 of· the
. Code, that the High Court ought not to intervene at an interlocutory stagj: during the pendency of committal proceedings
and
appropriate the jurisdiction of a Magistrate.
The High Court
also observed that the order of Rangarajan, J., -had been carri.ed
out i11 the sense that the appellant had been examined by the
authorities of the Snowdon Hospital as directed in that order and
those authorities had recommended further observation of the
appellant.
"Whether this could or should be done or not'', said
the High Court, "lies within the powers of the committing Magistrate to decide".
The matter then went back to the committing Magistrate. On
May 4, 1971, an apnlication was made on behalf of the aonellant
that in view of the aforesaid orders of the High Court, the Magistrate should direct that the appellant should be sent to a m~ntal
hospital for ascertainin11: his mental condition.
Aooarent'v. the
last order of the High Court on the aforesaid review applieition
by the !lopellqnt dated Miv 4, 1971 had not reached the Maoi~
trate. The Magistrate without waiting for that order to reach
him decided to oroceed. It seem~ thit he
misundeNtood the
ffiqh Court's order to mean that he h•d been ord~red bv the
Hfah Court to nroceed with the committal proceedings and to
determine whether a prima facie case on the said charge was
A
8
c
I)
E
F
G
H
A
B
.JAi SHANKER v. HIMACHAL PRADESH (She/at, Ag. C.J.)
5
made out, or not.
That is clear from his observation that "the
taation of the sanity or otherwise of the accused for purposes of
standing his trial as. envisaged by s .. 464, Criminal Procedure
Code, is to be determined by the Trial Court". On that understanding of the order the Magistrate rejected the application and
proceeded to record the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
Next day, the Magistrate passed an order committing the appellant to the Sessions Court to stand his trial on the said charge
under s. 303 of the Penal Code.
The appellant filed once more a revision application before
the Sessions Court challenging the said order of commitment.
The Sessions Court rejected that application holding
that the
C
Magistrate has sufficient grounds to infer that there were no reasobs to believe that the appellant was of unsound mind, and that
therefore, he was not in a position to make his defence and accordingly it was not incumbent upon the Magistrate to hold a prelill!inary .inquiry under s. 464. Aggrieved by the said order, the
D
E
G
appellant filed a revision application before
the
High
Court
challenging the validity of the said committal order.
The High
Court recited the several applications filed on behalf of the appellan~. the said order of Rang.i.rajan, J., the two orders passed by
Beg, C.J., and finally, the order of commitment and the order of
the Sessions Judge rejecting the revision filed against it. The High
Court held that there was sufficient evidence before the committing Magistrate from which that Magistrate could say that he
had sufficient reason to believe that the appellant was not suffering from any unsoundness of mind, and that therefore, there was
no necessity for him to act under s. 464.
The High Court further observed that neither Rangarajan, J., nor Beg, C.J., had
directed that the appellant should be taken to a mental hospital.
that on the contrary, the two orders of Beg, C.J. indicated that it
was left to the discretion of the committing Magistrate. to decide
whether he had any reason to believe that the appellant was
suffering from any unsoundness of mind and that the authorities
of the Snowdon Hospital also had not stated that the appellant
was suffering from ·any unsoundness .:if mind. The High Court
finally held that "from this point of view the order of the learned
District Magistrate .was right and when he did not find any circumstance to indicate that the accused was of unsound mind and
consequently incapable of making his defence, he r:ghtly proceedec:I with the case and made the order of ·commitment''. It is this
order which is under challenge in this appeal.
'Ibe situation arising in this case is governed by s. 464 of the
Code which lays down the proce:lure which a magistrate is
enjoined upon to follow when an accused ·person allei:es that he is
suffering !Tom such mental iDfirmity as to render him incapable
6
SUPREME COURT llBPORTS
. [1973) 2 S.C.R.
of making his defence.
The unsoundness of mind dealt with in
this section is the one which such an accused person alleges to be
suffering from at the time of the inquiry before the Magistrate and
not one at the time of the incident during which he is said to have
committed the offence in question.
The section in plain terms
provides that if the Magistrate holdi.ng the inquiry (in the present
case the committal proceedings) has reason to believe that the
accused at that point of time is suffering from unsoundness of
mind, and consequently, is incapable of making hi~ defence, he
shall institute an inquiry into the fact of such unsoundness and
shall cause the accusd to be examined by a civil surgeon of the
district or such other medical officer as the State Government
directs.
It is clear from the mandatory language of the section
that the first thing that the Magistrate has to do is to decide, when
an accused person is brought before him who is suspected or
2lleged to be a person of unsound mind and before he proceeds
with the inquiry, whether such person appears t0 him to be of
unsound mind.
The words "reason to believe"
indicate that
when an accused person is presented before a Magistrate for
·inquiry, who, it is alleged, is suffering from unsoundness of mind,
the magistrate has, on such materials, as are brought before ~.
to inquire before he proceeds with the inquiry whether there are .
reasons to believe that the accused before hii;n is suffering from
any such infirmity.
The next step is that if he has such reasons
to believe, he is to ir.stitute an inquiry into the fact of unsoundness of mind and cause him to be examined by the civil surgeon
or such other medical officer as the State Government directs.
Therefore, when a question is raised as to the unsoundness of
mind of an accused pei'son, the magistrate is bound to inquire
before he proceeds with the inquiry before him
whether the
accused is or not incapacitated by the unspundness of mind from
making his defence.
Such a provision clearly is in consonance
with the principles of fair administration of justice.
A
B
c
D
E
F
From the narration of the facts above it is fairly clear that
right from the commencement of the inquiry applications were
made b~fore both the Magistrate at Kulu and the Magi~trate at
Bilaspur, that tlie accused was suffering from
mental infirmity
G
and that an inquirv into his mental state was necessary.
Indeed,
along with the anp!ication made to the Magistrate at Bilasnur certillcates of three different, doctors, who knew the accused dU1ing
his student days, were annexed in support of the application for
medical examination. It would apoear that no regular inquiry
was made by the Macistrate.
But from the fact that the accused
had aoolied for remittance to his mother of the money seized by
JI '
the police from him and. his answers to the Magistrate's query
whether copies of documents were supplied to him under s. 173
• A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
JAi SHANKER v. HIMACHAL PRADESH (She/at, Ag. C.J.)
7
of the Code, the Magistrate concluded that he had no reason to
believe that the accused was at that stage suffering from such
infirmity as would make him incapable of making his defe!lce.
The order passed by Rangarajan, J ., against the Magistrate's said
order would seem to indicate that what the Magistrate did was
neither adequate nor satisfactory and it was for that reason that
Rangarai!in, J., directed that it was necessary in the larger interests
of justice that the accused should be examined by the authorities
of Snowdon Hospital, and if necessary, he should be kept under
observation to enable the doctors there to ascertain properly
whether the accused was suffering from any mental infirmity. We
may note that the learned Judge also ordered that the report of
the hospital authorities should go to the Magistrate directly. That
was. presumably done to enable t~e Magistrate to hold ~ in.quiry
into the fact of unsoundness of nund of the accused, which 1s the
seccnd stage provided in s. 464.
Unfortunately,
tt.e hospital
authorities did not have the necessary facilities for keeping the
accused under observation as directed by Rangarajan, J.,
and
although the accused was examined by two psychistrists, the
Superintendent of the Hospital reported that with the inadequate
facilities which they had it was not possible to give a satisfactory
opinion as to the state of mind of the accused and had recommended i.;s removal to a mental hospital.
As
aforesaid,
the
recommendation made by the Superintendent wa~ not carried out
and although the Magistrate did not have any definite opinion
.one way or the other before him, he decided to proceed with the
inquiry.
The result was that the accused was obliged once again.
to go to the Sessions Court and then to the High Court for
redress against the course. adopted by the Magistrate.
The High
Court took up the attitude that it should not intervene al an interlocutory stage, that the matter should be left to the discretion of
the Magistrate to decide whether he should hold the inquiry or
not under s. 464, and tfiat in any event Rangarajan, J., had not
ordered that the appellant to be shifted to a mental hospital for
a further examination, his order having been confined to his examination by Snowdon Hospital, which order had been complied
with.
It is not possible to agree with such an interpretation of the
order passed by Rangarajan, J. It seems that that learned Judge
ordered the examination of the accused bv the Snowdon Hospital
because he was apparently under the impression that that hospital
has the necessarv facilities, including that of keening the appellant
under observation and to come to some definite opinion.
He
would not have otherwise directed that the accused should be
keot under observation for such time as the medical authorities
there thought necessarv. Had the order of Ranqarajan, J. been
carried out in the spirit in which it was made and arrangement:>
8
SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS
[1973] 2 S.C.R.
had been made to have the appellant examined by doctors in a
hospital with adequate faciliti!:$. the time that has been taken up
in dealing with the appellant's further applications and revisions
would have been saved.
The two orders passed by Beg, C.J., clearly meant that the
High Court left the matter to the Magistrate to decide whether
he had reason to believe or μot that the accused was suffering
from mental infirmity and it was only if he decided that he had
no such reason to ·believe that he should next proceed with the
committal proceedings.
The order passed by
the Magistrate
thereafter shows that he misunderstood the High Court's order to
mean that he was at once to proceed to decide whether there was
a prima facie case against the appellant, and if so1 to commit him
to the Sessions Court for trial.
Indeed, the Magistrate dld not
even wait for the second order passed by Beg, C. 1., disposing
of the review petition filed by the appellant for revising bis earlier
order.
That being so, neither the Sessions Court in revision
against the Magistrate's committal order, nor the High Court iii a
further revision against the Sessions Court's order could have held
that on the materillls before the Magistrate, the Magistrate had
held that be had no reason to believe that the appellant was suffering from infirmity which would incapacitate him from making
A
B
c
D
his defence, and was therefore, not bound to hold any inquiry
and could therefore proceed with the committal proceedings .,
before him.
·
_
A perusal of the order passed by the Magistrate is enough to
satisfy that the Magistrate had misapprehended the order passed
by Beg, C. 1., and as a result of such misapprehension thought
that he had been directed, without anything more, to proceed with
the committal proceedings; A fair reading of the order of Beg,
C. J .. shows that what he said was that under s. 464 it was for
the Magistrate, and not the High Court, at that stage to decide
whether there were reasons to believe that the accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind and to proceed with the inquiry,
if he came to the conclusion that he had no such reason,
That
order did not direct and could not have directed the Magistrate
to proceed with the committal proceedings without first detennining whether on the allegations made by the accused, the data Pl'!>-
duced by him and the conduct and behaviour of the appell,ant in
his Court, the Magistrate had reasons or not to believe that die
apPellant was suffering from mental infirmity of the kind ~nvisaged bv s. 464.
That we apprehend was never done as is clear
from the very order passed blY the Magistrate nor was appellant
called upon to show that he was suffering at that stage from unsoundness of mind which he ought to have been called upon to
establish since the burden was upon him to so establish.
The
F
G
H
,\
H
c
D
E
JAI SHANKER v. HIMACHAL PRADESH (She/at, Ag. CJ.)
9
words "reason to believe" mean a belief which a reasonable person would entertain on fact~ before hi111.
That would be the
burden which the appellant would be e.:pected to discharge. That
was the proper course for the Magistrate to follow, both in view
of the provisions of s. 464 and the orders passed by Beg, C.J.,
besides the report of the Superintendent of the Snowdown Hospital that before a definitive view could be taken of the mental
state of the appellant he would have to be kept under observa·
tion in a mental hospital.
In this view, the High Court was not correct when it held that
the Magistrate had held an inquiry, that he had held in that
inquiry that he had no reason to believe that the appellant was
suffering from any unsoundness of mind,
and that therefore,
he could straight away proceed with the committal proceedings.
Jn our view, the Magistrate failed to make such an inquiry which
it was incumbent upon him to make at the very threshold, and
thll't having not been done, the committal proceedings, as also his
order committing the appellant to the Sessions Court for trial
were both vitiated.
Consequently, the appeal must be
allowed
and the High Court's order and also the committal order passed·
by the committing Magistrate must be set aside and a de novo
committal proceeding directed. We further direct the Magistrate
to hold those proceedings in :ompliance with the requirements
of s. 464 and give an opportunity to the l\PPellant to produce evi·
dence, if he so desires, to sati~fy the Magistrate that there are
reasons to believe that he is suffering from such unsoundness
of mind as would incapacitate him from making his defence.
S.B.W.
Appeal allowed