JUDGMENT R. Singh, J. - This is a reference by a Magistrate first class, Rai Bareli, u/s 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It appears that a dacoity was committed at the houses of Dasau and Babu of Lalji Ka Purwa, a hamlet of Sultanpur Khera, in the district of Rae Bareli on the night intervening between the 23rd and 24th July, 1952. Investigation was taken up and it is alleged that the opposite party Gajodhar alias Guga dug out and gave some property to the police which was found to be a part of the property taken away by the dacoits in the dacoity committed in Lalji-ka-Purwa. After the investigation had been completed the opposite party, alone with some others, were sent up for trial. The Committing Magistrate, however found a prima case against the applicant and some others and committed them to the Court of Session. As the opposite party was found by the Magistrate to be deaf and dumb and unable to understand the proceedings he made the reference which is before me, u/s 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. When the case came up on the 20th July, 1953 it appeared to me that there was not sufficient material on the record from which it could be inferred that the applicant was deaf and dumb. The Magistrate was them directed to record evidence and also get the opposite party examined medically in order to find out if the opposite party was really deaf and dumb, and also unable to understand the nature of the proceedings against him. The Judicial Officer recorded some evidence and also had the opposite party examined by the civil Surgeon and his report shows that both from the oral evidence as also from the report of the Civil Surgeon, it appealed that the applicant was unable to understand the nature of the proceedings and was both deaf and dumb. 4. It would thus appear that it was a fit case for reference u/s 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Unfortunately the Code of Criminal Procedure does not give any guidance as to what should be done in cases in which a person accused of a serious offence is unable to understand the nature of the proceedings against him. 4. It would thus appear that it was a fit case for reference u/s 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Unfortunately the Code of Criminal Procedure does not give any guidance as to what should be done in cases in which a person accused of a serious offence is unable to understand the nature of the proceedings against him. No doubt very wide powers have been given to the High Court to deal with the matter as it thinks proper. In some reported cases, following the practice in England, such cases have been reported to the State Government for suitable orders vide Emperor v. Ram Manohar AIR 1935 Oud. 414. 5. I have examined the evidence led before the Committing Magistrate in proof of the case against the opposite party and it appears from the evidence that this accused was correctly identified by two inmates of the house who had an opportunity to see the faces of the dacoits. There is the added circumstance that some stolen property was recovered from the house of the opposite party and he himself dug out and gave this property to the police. There is, therefore, reason to believe that the opposite party was involved in the dacoity, but he bring deaf and dumb and unable to understand the nature of the proceedings is not in a position to offer any explanation for the property which has been recovered from his possession nor is he in a position to explain the circumstances, if any, in which he was placed when he jointed the dacoits, if at all. It is possible that he being deaf and dumb may have been only a tool in the hands of the other dacoits. I do not therefore think it fit on the evidence to record a finding of conviction in the peculiar circumstances of this case and I therefore think it fit to order that the opposite party may be detained in custody during the pleasure of the State Government and a report to this effect may be sent to the State Government.