Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 863 (DEL)

Sheila Kaul Thr. Ms. Deepa Kaul v. State Thr. CBI

2014-03-11

VED PRAKASH VAISH

body2014
Judgment Ved Prakash Vaish, J. 1. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the present case are that a charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Section120B IPC read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was filed against the petitioner along with other co-accused persons. Vide order dated 02.02.2012, learned trial Court directed for framing of charge against the petitioner for the offences under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 13(2) read with Section13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and also substantive offence under these sections. The petitioner moved an application seeking appointment of Local Commissioner for verification of physical and mental condition of the petitioner Ms. Sheila Kaul. Vide order dated 09.04.2012, learned trial Court directed the Director, AIIMS Hospital to constitute a Medical Board to examine Ms. Sheila Kaul and to give its opinion as to whether she is capable of understanding things and giving rational answers and also her mental faculties, unsoundness of mind (if any) and her present condition. Pursuant to the said order, a Medical Board was constituted in All India Institute of Medical Sciences. The Medical Board examined the petitioner and submitted its report dated 27.04.2012. 2. Thereafter, a request was made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is unable to attend the Court for the purpose of framing of charge. Learned trial Court examined Dr. S.K. Khandelwal, Professor, Department of Psychiatry (CW-1), Chairman of Medical Board on 07.05.2012. Vide order dated 09.05.2012, learned trial Court directed the petitioner to appear in person and to answer the charges to be framed against her. 3. The petitioner filed present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against order dated 02.02.2012 whereby order on charge was passed and against order dated 09.05.2012 whereby the petitioner was directed to appear in person and to answer the charge against her. Vide order dated 20.02.2013, the said petition was dismissed by this Court. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 1676-77/2013. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued notice to the respondent, limited to prayer (b) mentioned in the present petition. The Apex Court set aside the order passed by this Court qua order 09.05.2012 and remitted back the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 1676-77/2013. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued notice to the respondent, limited to prayer (b) mentioned in the present petition. The Apex Court set aside the order passed by this Court qua order 09.05.2012 and remitted back the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is of unsound mind and is unable to defend herself. In support of his submission, he has referred to definition of 'unsound mind' given in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition by Co-authors Joseph R. Nolan and Jacqueline M. Nolan-Halley. According to the same, unsound mind means 'Non-legal term referring to one from infirmity of mind is incapable of managing himself or his affairs. The term, therefore, includes insane persons. It exists where there is an essential deprivation of the reasoning faculties, or where a person is incapable of understanding and acting with discretion in the ordinary affairs of life'. 6. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, trial should be adjourned sine die as per provisions of Section 328 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for CBI urges that the order of charge was passed by learned trial Court on 02.02.2012. The order on charge was upheld by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 8. Learned counsel for CBI pointed out that in case Sheila Kaul vs. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, (2002) 10 SCC 667 , the Supreme Court has observed that the direction to lodge criminal prosecution on the basis of investigation of CBI is not being altered in any manner and if any criminal proceedings has already been instituted that must take its own course on the material produced. 9. Learned counsel for CBI further submits that in case the petitioner is unable to come to the Court, charge can be read over and explained through video conferencing. She also submits that the feasibility of video conferencing has been explored by the CBI and National Informatics Centre (NIC) has confirmed that the same can be done and that it will provide the necessary expertise for executing the same. The requisite equipments are available and can be arranged at the time of explaining the charges to the petitioner. She also submits that the feasibility of video conferencing has been explored by the CBI and National Informatics Centre (NIC) has confirmed that the same can be done and that it will provide the necessary expertise for executing the same. The requisite equipments are available and can be arranged at the time of explaining the charges to the petitioner. The report on behalf CBI in his regard has been placed on record. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties. 11. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the petitioner was examined by the Medical Board of AIIMS Hospital in compliance of order dated 09.05.2012 passed by the trial Court. It is relevant to reproduce the opinion of Medical Board which reads as under:- ... Ms. Sheila Kaul is able to comprehend only simple questions. She does not comprehend complex questions or instructions. Questions need to be repeated a few times to elicit response. Her reaction time even for simple question is prolonged. She answers in monosyllables or a few words only. Her comprehension was limited and responses were slow and delayed. Her attention was ill sustained and she needed questions to be repeated a few times, her memory for immediate, recent and remote events seemed impaired. Information about day to day events was impaired. Due to her impairment in her physical and mental functions and easy fatigability there was limitation of having detailed assessment of neurological, psychological and cognitive functions. On the basis of history and clinical examination, Ms. Sheila Kaul does not seem to have any major psychiatric disorder as per International Classification of Diseases (Revision 10) of the World Health Organization. However, possibility is senile dementia cannot be ruled out. Ms. Sheila Kaul is confined to bed and is not ambulatory. She is suffering from hypertension (under control with medicines), coronary artery diseases (under treatment), anemia and bilateral medical kidney disease (not showing any functional impairment) 12. Further, Dr. S.K. Khandelwal, Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Chairman of the Medical Board was examined by the trial Court on 07.05.2012, wherein he has clarified that the petitioner cannot be termed as lunatic for which now new term is 'psychosis'. She can understand simple questions when put to her. At times, questions had to be repeated to her to make her understand. S.K. Khandelwal, Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Chairman of the Medical Board was examined by the trial Court on 07.05.2012, wherein he has clarified that the petitioner cannot be termed as lunatic for which now new term is 'psychosis'. She can understand simple questions when put to her. At times, questions had to be repeated to her to make her understand. Her comprehension is slow and delayed and she takes time to respond. 13. Section 318 of Cr.P.C. provides the procedure to be followed where accused does not understand the proceedings, which is 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 fit. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the medical opinion given by the Board of Doctors as well as statement of Dr. S.K. Khandelwal, it is clear that the petitioner is not of unsound mind. That being so, the trial cannot be adjourned sine die. The charge can be read over and explained to the petitioner through video conferencing by learned trial Court and in case the trial Court feels that the petitioner is unable to understand the charges, the trial Court will pass an appropriate order in that regard. 15. Applying the provisions of Section 318 of Cr.P.C., the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and sent back the case at an appropriate stage, if required. Since the trial is pending for a long period, the trial Court is requested to expedite the trial. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. Disposed off.