Judgment :- 1. The father of the counter-petitioner in M. C. No. 18 of 1977, hereinafter referred to as the counter-petitioner, which was an application filed by the respondent herein against the counter-petitioner for maintenance under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is the petitioner in this revision petition. He is aggrieved by the decision of the learned Magistrate who dismissed his petition for appointing him as the guardian of the counter-petitioner alleging that the counter-petitioner was deaf and dumb, incapable of understanding the proceedings in court. The learned Magistrate took the view that the petitioner had no locus standi for moving the court for any relief whatsoever. The learned Magistrate also observed that there was no averment in the petition that the counter-petitioner was a person of unsound mind incapable of making his defence; a deaf and dumb person is not a person of unsound mind. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that proceedings under S.125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is of a civil natore, and therefore the procedure prescribed in R.15 Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure is to be adopted in criminal proceedings where the accused is found to be a deaf and dumb person. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that unless a guardian is appointed for the counter-petitioner, it will not be possible for him to defend his case properly. The submission of the counsel, therefore, is that incompliance with either the relevant provisions of Order XXXII of the Civil Procedure Code or S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner ought to have been appointed as the guardian of the counter-petitioner as prayed for in the petition. 3. No provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which directs the court to appoint a guardian for a deaf and dumb person has been brought to my notice. 3. No provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which directs the court to appoint a guardian for a deaf and dumb person has been brought to my notice. There is no doubt sub-section (I) of S.329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides that if it appears to be Magistrate or Court that the accused is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, the Magistrate or the Court shall, in the first instance, try the fact of such unsoundness and incapacity, and if the Magistrate or the Court, after considering such medical and other evidence as may be produced before him or it, was satisfied of the fact, he or it shall record a finding to that effect and shall postpone further proceedings in the case. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the provision is applicable to the case on hand which involves a deaf and dumb person. What obviously applicable to the case seems to be S.318 of the Code which corresponds to S.341 of the old Code of 1898. That section provides as follows: "If the accused, though not of unsound mind, cannot be made to understand the proceedings, the Court may proceed with the inquiry or trial; and in the case of a Court other than a High Court, if such proceedings result in a conviction, the proceedings shall be forwarded to the High Court with a report of the circumstances of the case, and the High Court shall pass thereon such order as it thinks it." 4. First and foremost it is incumbent on the part of the Magistrate or the Court trying the case to ascertain by an enquiry during the course of the proceedings whether the accused before it stated to be deaf and dumb is a person who is not in a position to make the defence of his. case. The degree of his disability has to be determined by applying proper tests like finding out whether to his friends and relatives it was possible for him to communicate his ideas and he was in a position to understand what he is told or what he is asked. In certain cases it may also be necessary to send the accused who claims to be under disability for medical examination to ascertain the degree of such disability. In certain cases it may also be necessary to send the accused who claims to be under disability for medical examination to ascertain the degree of such disability. The procedure thereafter to be followed is as laid down in S.318 of the Code. The Magistrate has to proceed with the matter. However, if any enquiry or trial ends in conviction, the records relating to the proceedings are to be forwarded to the High Court which will thereon pass such orders as it thinks fit. 5. It is the paramount duty of the court to ensure that the accused understood the proceedings and was able to answer the questions put to him after having understood it. One way of enabling him to do is to avail of the service of the persons who understand his language or signs or gestures. It may be his friends or relatives. Yet another way of doing that would be to appoint official interpreters. No doubt in the strict sense it might not fall within the ambit of S.279 of the Code which corresponds to S.361 of the Code of 1898 which lays down as follows: "279(1). whenever any evidence is given in a language not understood by the accused, and he is present in Court in person, it shall be interpreted to him in open Court in a language understood by him." In the strict sense the disability from which an accused who is a deaf and dumb person suffers is not from the inability to follow a particular language but his total disability to hear what is spoken. In that sense it amounts to a graver situation than the mere disability of understanding a particular language with which he is not conversant. S.282 of the Code which corresponds to S.543 of the old Code lays down that when the services of an interpreter are required by any criminal court for the interpretation of any evidence or statement, he shall be bound to state the true interpretation of such evidence or statement. What is provided in S.119 of the Evidence Act reads as follows: "A witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs; but such writing must be written and the signs made in open Court. What is provided in S.119 of the Evidence Act reads as follows: "A witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs; but such writing must be written and the signs made in open Court. Evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral evidence." 6. There appears to be no specific provision in the Code which provides for the appointment of interpreters when the accused is a deaf and dumb person. However in R.89A of the Travancore-Cochin Criminal Rules of Practice, now in force in our State, there is the following provision: "89A. (1) The teachers of the deaf and the dumb schools shall be treated as expert witnesses in the matter of interpreting the deaf and dumb in courts. They shall be paid the same rates of fees as are payable to other experts or scientific witnesses." 7. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is that when a doubt arises as to whether the accused is a deaf and dumb person, incapable of understanding the proceedings in court, it is the duty of the Magistrate or the Court to have a preliminary enquiry conducted in the course of the same proceedings to ascertain whether the accused is really deaf and dumb and the extent of his disability if any, to understand the proceedings. For this purpose, among other things, the Magistrate or the Court should ascertain whether the accused has been in the habit of communicating to others like his friends and relatives. It could also be ascertained by obtaining medical opinion. Thereafter interpreters as provided under R.89A of the Criminal Rules of Practice (Travance-Cochin State) could be appointed in appropriate cases. If the Magistrate or the Court thereafter is satisfied that the accused was able to understand the proceedings, he or it may proceed with the trial or enquiry as in any other case. Thereafter interpreters as provided under R.89A of the Criminal Rules of Practice (Travance-Cochin State) could be appointed in appropriate cases. If the Magistrate or the Court thereafter is satisfied that the accused was able to understand the proceedings, he or it may proceed with the trial or enquiry as in any other case. On the other hand, if the Magistrate or court is not satisfied that the accused was in a position to understand the proceedings in spite of his efforts to make him understand it, he or it may proceed with the enquiry or trial; and if such proceedings resulted in a conviction, the proceedings shall be forwarded to the High Court with a report of the circumstances of the case; and the High Court shall pass thereon such orders as it thinks fit. This is in accordance with the procedure laid down in S.318 of the Criminal Procedure Code, substantially corresponding to S.341 of the Code of 1898. In the case of proceeding resulting in acquittal there is no need to forward the proceedings to the High Court. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, no question of appointment of a guardian for the counter-petitioner as prayed for by the petitioner really arises, and as a matter of fact the petitioner has no locus standi to file a petition of that nature. The Magistrate may follow the procedure prescribed under S.318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It may be done in spite of the dismissal as per the impugned order of the application filed by the petitioner for appointing him as the guardian of the counter petitioner. The revision is disposed of as above.