ORDER : The petitioner is the 1st accused in these cases. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI. 3. The petitioner is mainly attacking the Final Report in these cases on the ground that he was suffering from legal insanity at the time when the offences had allegedly taken place. It has been pointed out that he was a chronic alcoholic and due to continued alcoholism, he became totally insane both medically as well as legally. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not aware of the nature and quality of the acts done by him during the period in question and that he was not aware whether he was doing something wrong or contrary to law. Precisely, the petitioner is harping upon the defence that could be taken under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the CBI has vehemently opposed these Crl.M.Cs on two grounds. The first ground is that it is not correct to say that the petitioner was suffering from any sort of insanity. The second ground is that the plea of insanity within the meaning of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is one coming under the general exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, and the same could be taken as a defence only at the stage of trial. Therefore, according to the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI, the present stage is too premature to consider those aspects. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the decision in Sankaran v. State of Kerala [ 1993 (2) KLT 852 ]; wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code could be attracted only in a case, wherein by reason of unsoundness of mind, such a person was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what is either wrong or contrary to law, at the time of doing the act. The said proposition is based on the difference of medical insanity as well as legal insanity. The said proposition is based on the difference of medical insanity as well as legal insanity. In the decision noted supra, it was also held that the burden on the accused to establish legal insanity is not the very same as being expected from the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. 7. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to prove the offence beyond doubt. At the same time, in order to establish legal insanity and to take shelter under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, an accused is not expected to prove legal insanity beyond doubt. What is expected is proof through mere preponderance of probabilities. In the decision noted supra, it was held that in order to satisfy the legal insanity, the standard of proof required is the standard of a prudent man to note down whether he was legally insane or not. 8. The ingredients of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code can only be taken as a defence during trial. It is not possible to throw out the Final Report in a case on the ground that the concerned accused was suffering from legal insanity. The legal insanity has to be proved by the concerned accused, who is harping upon such a defence. The standard of proof required is only by proof through preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond doubt. Matters being so, the present stage is too premature to consider those aspects. 9. The aforesaid ground taken up by the petitioner is left open. This Court has not considered the matter on merits. This Court has not considered the question as to whether the petitioner was legally insane or not. The said question is left open to be decided by the court below at appropriate stage. With liberty to the petitioner to take up the very same contention before the trial court at appropriate stage, these Crl.M.Cs are disposed of.