Judgment 1. Heard Mr. A. K.Rashidi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. I.N. Gupta, learned A.P.P. for the State and also Mrs. Anubha Rawat Choudhary, learned Counsel for the informant. 2. It is admitted that a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the trial Court to the effect that the petitioner is of unsound mind, hence he may be examined by the Doctor of Mental Hospital. An order was passed to the effect that the petitioner be examined by the Medical Board headed by Civil Surgeon. Sub-sequently from Annexure-7 to the supplementary affidavit filed in pursuance of the order dated 17-5-1999 passed by this Court, it will appear that Civil Surgeon has referred the matter to Kanke Mental Hospital for examination of the petitoner to the effect whether he is of unsound mind or not. The grievence of the petitioner is that the Court below without holding the aforesaid inquiry or sending the petitioner to the Medical Board rejected the application filed by him for holding an inquiry regarding his state of unsoundness of mind. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be examined by the Medical Board by Doctor of Kanke Mental Hospital. 3. Learned A.P.P., submitted that the matter has beer fully examined by the Court below in the impugned order. The submission of the petitioner regarding his mental disorder did not find support and the evidence is going on and at this stage aforesaid inquiry cannot be done. 4. Learned Counsel for the Opposite party has placed reliance on a decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court report in 1987 (2) CLR 215 wherein it is stated that the order of the trial Court regarding the fact that the accused is not of unsound mind and is capable of making defence is of interlocutory nature revision against this aforesaid order is expressly arred under Section 397 (2) of the Code. Section 329 of the Cr PC provides in case of person of unsound mind tried before Court (1) if at the trial of any person before a Magistrate or Court of Sessions, it appears to the Magistrate or Court that such person is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, the Magistrate or Court shall, in the first instance, try the fact of such unsoundness and incapacity, and if the Magistrate or Court, after considering such medical and 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 proceeding in the case. 5. In this case, the Court below has positively observed that the petitioner is of sound mind and he refused to the stay the proceeding or making inquiry as provided under Section 329 Cr. PC In the decision referred to above, it has been obseved that this order is of interlocutory in nature and therefore, this revision cannot be preferred. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision reported in AIR 1972 SC 2267 and submitted that without making any adequate or satisfactory inquiry as required by Section 464 the Magistrate could have proceeded further in the matter. On the other hand-learned Counsel for the opposite party placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1971 SC 1638 , wherein it has been held that, under Section 465, if on examining the accused, it does not appear to the Sessions Judge that accused is insane, he need not hold an inquiry into the matter. However, if he has any serious doubt in the matter, he should hold proper inquiry. It is submitted that in this case VIIth Add. Judl. Commissioner, Ranchi in the impugned order positively observed that the petitioner is a man of normal mental condition and his behaviour in dock shows that he on false pretext of keeping-mum in Court wants to derive benefit of unsoundness of mind and thereby putting hindrance in smooth trial for the reason best known to him. It further submitted that in another case reported in 1975 Cr LJ 354, the Supreme Court has held that there was no necessity to proceed under Section 465, Cr. It further submitted that in another case reported in 1975 Cr LJ 354, the Supreme Court has held that there was no necessity to proceed under Section 465, Cr. PC and the trial is not vitiated though suspicion was expressed by the Civil Surgeon that the accused had developed suicidal mania and there was no suggestion in his certificate to keep his under observation in mental hospital. 7. It is further submitted that in a division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1977 Cri LJ 513 it was held "Where in the trial for murder the Sessions Court on receipt of letter from Jail Superintendent for permission to and accused for psyshic test ordered that since the hearing had already commenced and accused gave reply on the charge being explained and there was nothing to indicate that the accused was incapable to make his defence it was not desirable to accord permission for his removal to Central Jail as that would amount postponement of trial which was bound to cause harassment to accused himself, it was held that there was no violation of the provision of Section 465". 8. In view of the decisions referred to above, the learned Counsel for the opposite party/A.P.P. submitted that when the trial Court namely VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi was satisfied that accused does not suffer from any unsoundness of mind and the case is in the evidence stage, it is not necessary to get the petitioner/accused examined by any Doctor/Psychiatrist. 9. In view of the different decisions cited by both the parties, it appears that the decision cited on behalf of the Opposite party is more relevant to the facts of the case though decision cited by the petitioner. The decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court as referred to above also shows that this revision is not maintainable in a case of this nature. This revision application is dismissed.