JUDGMENT N.M. Kasliwal, C.J.—This reference has been sent by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, under section 395 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to decide the following Question : "Whether further proceedings in the instant case against Sarvshri Himal Chand and Pancham Chand co-accused of Daulat Ram, who is incapable of making his defence, should or should not be postponed ?" 2. In order to decide the above question, brief facts of the case are given as under : A F.I.R. No. 20 of 1988 was lodged on January 14, 1988 in Police Station Jogindernagar. The allegations made in the F.I.R. were that on January 14, 1988, at about 4.30 p.m. accused Daulat Ram got fit and allegedly having darshan of Kali Devi and in order to satisfy the religious lust of offering sacrifice assaulted his wife Smt Kunjo Devi, which ultimately resulted in her death. During the investigation of the case, it was revealed that the principal offender Daulat Ram had committed the murder of his minor son, Chman Lal, aged 6/7 years on Jan. 10, 1988 and that he had buried his body in a Nullah nearby the residential house of the accused with the aid of Sarvshri Himal Chand and Pancham Chand brothers of Daulat Ram. The police, as such, registered a case under section 302/201 I.P.C. against the accused persons. During the course of the trial, it was found that the principal offender Daulat Ram was incapable of making his defence and he was a patient of chronic schizophrenia. The learned Sessions Judge, in these circumstances, dealt the case of Daulat Ram under section 330 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and passed an order that further proceedings in the case be postponed and the accused Daulat Ram was ordered to be kept in sufficient security in the judicial lock-up at Mandi till the District Magistrate, Mandi, make separate arrangements for his transmission to Lunatic Asylum in accordance with law. In view of the fact that in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1988, State v. Daulat Ram and two others, the accused persons had been challaned for the commission of offence under section 302 and 201, I.P.C. the learned Sessions Judge has made the present reference for deciding the above mentioned question. In view of the fact that in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1988, State v. Daulat Ram and two others, the accused persons had been challaned for the commission of offence under section 302 and 201, I.P.C. the learned Sessions Judge has made the present reference for deciding the above mentioned question. According to the learned Sessions Judge, further proceedings in the instant case were required to be postponed in its entirety against all the accused persons. 3. I have heard Shri L.S. Panta, learned Deputy Advocate General, and he has not supported the reference and has contended that the trial should continue against the two accused persons, Himal Chand and Pancham Chand. So far as the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code are concerned, there is no specific provision to envisage the above situation. Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to the case of a person of unsound mind tried before the court and provides that the fact of unsoundness and incapacity of the accused shall be decided separately and if the Magistrate or court, after considering such medical or other evidence as may be produced before him or it, is satisfied of the fact, he or it shall record a finding to that effect and shall postpone further proceedings in the case. It does not provide with regard to the other accused persons. So far as the person of unsound mind is concerned, the resumption of enquiry or trial can be done at any time after the person concerned has ceased to be of unsound mind as contained in section 331 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The controversy of the above kind came for consideration before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in Narayanrao Madhaorao Datarao v The State of Maharashtra, Vol. LXX (1968) Bombay Law Reporter 425. While dealing with section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, their Lordships in the above case held that the provision for postponement of further proceedings applies in the case of an accused suspected to be of unsound mind only and does not imply postponement of the whole trial in respect of his other co-accused. Reliance in the above case was placed on a decision in Nar Singh and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 457. Reliance in the above case was placed on a decision in Nar Singh and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 457. Their Lordships of the Bombay High Court observed as under :— "In our opinion, the same principle of construction ought to govern interpretation of section 465 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It does not appear to be intended that merely because one of the accused jointly tried with others in a trial before the Court of Session is found to be of unsound mind, the whole trial i.e. the trial of accused other than such person should be postponed to an indefinite period till the other provisions of this Chapter can be brought into force. We are satisfied that postponement of further proceedings must be limited to the trial of the accused alleged to be of unsound mind only and reference to postponement of proceedings in the case must mean the case of the particular accused and not others." 4. The above authority of the Bombay High Court was relied by the Kerala High Court in State of Kerala v. Hariharan Pillai alias Khanna and others, 1983 (2) Crimes 699. It was held as under :— "The Code does not contain any specific provision relating to cases where one or some only among several accused are, by reason of unsound mind, incapacitated from facing trial. Obviously, no such specific provision had been made because the relevant sections in Chapter XXV of the Code are capable of providing guidelines in such cases also. Section 329 of the Code contemplates postponement of further proceedings in the case. Section 332 contemplates a situation where the trial shall proceed. Obviously, these sections can relate only to the case in so far as it relates to the accused who, by reason of unsound-ness of mind, is incapable of making his defence. It cannot affect or relate to the case in so far as it concern the other accused. Any other construction would lead to very serious consequences for the accused who are not so incapacitated. The necessary implication of these provisions is that the case can proceed against the remaining accused. Any other interpretation would create untold hardship and prejudice to such accused and complications in relation to court process. Any other construction would lead to very serious consequences for the accused who are not so incapacitated. The necessary implication of these provisions is that the case can proceed against the remaining accused. Any other interpretation would create untold hardship and prejudice to such accused and complications in relation to court process. There can be no doubt that the learned Sessions Judge was correct in his decision to proceed with the trial of the case in relation to accused other than the 5th accused. Necessarily, the case against the 5th accused must be given a separate number. I am supported in this view by the decision of the Bombay High Court in Narayanrao Madhorao Datarao v. The State of Maharashtra." 5. In Sohonis Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 18th Edition, Volume 4, page 3475, under point 7, it has been observed "If only one of the two or more accused are of unsound mind and incapable of understanding their defence, it is not necessary to postpone the entire trial. The trial should proceed against the other accused". In support of this, the above mentioned cases of Bombay and Kerala High Courts have been cited. There is no contrary view taken by any other High Court. 6. I am in full agreement with the view taken in the aforementioned two cases of Bombay and Kerala High Courts. If we look the matter from another angle, the proceedings have to be stayed against the accused, who is of unsound mind and the trial against such person can only commence when such a person ceases to be of unsound-mind and is able to defend his own case. Thus the accused, who is of unsound mind may continue in such a position for a large number of years or even upto the end of his life. Now, in that kind of situation, if the trial against the other accused persons also remains postponed, then such trial can only commence after the accused person who is of unsound mind becomes capable to defend his own case. The long number of years may create a situation where the prosecution witnesses may also not be available to give their evidence or may not correctly remember the incident due to lapse of memory after a long number of years. The long number of years may create a situation where the prosecution witnesses may also not be available to give their evidence or may not correctly remember the incident due to lapse of memory after a long number of years. In case the Legislature had intended that the trial may be postponed against other accused persons also, then they would have clearly provided in Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure while making a provision with regard to accused persons of unsound mind. The omission on the part of the Legislature is deliberate and it clearly means that the Legislature intended to postpone the trial of the case in respect of accused persons of unsound mind only. 7. The prosecution in a case of the present kind, where other accused persons are to be tried for an offence under section 201, I.P.C. will have to produce the entire evidence which may be required for proving an offence under section 302, I.P.C. also. Merely because it would put the prosecution to inconvenience, it cannot be held that the trial against the other accused persons under section 201, I.P.C. should also be postponed. In case the prosecution wants to get Himal Chand and Pancham Chand accused person being tried under section 201, I.P.C. they are bound to lead entire evidence necessary for the conviction of these persons under section 201, I.P.C. 8. In view of these circumstances, question. Referred to above is answered in the following manner : "The proceedings in the Sessions Case No. 17 of 1988, State v. Daulat Ram and two others, shall continue so far as the two accused Himal Chand and Pancham Chand are concerned The trial against these two accused person shall not be postponed till the accused Daulat Ram becomes of sound mind". Order accordingly.