Procedure of Law to be Followed

State of Maharastra vs. Subhashsing

Filed under: Section 331, 332, 333, 335, 378 and 410 of the Criminal Procedure Code
Section 84 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code
Appellant: State of Maharastra
Respondent: Subhashsing
Citation: 1996 (1) Bom CR 102
Court: In the High Court of Bombay
Judge: V.S. Sirpurkar

Facts

Subhashsingh committed the murder of his son who was about 10 to 12 years of age. However, during the trial, he pleaded that he was ‘lunatic’ at the time of commission of the act and was therefore incapable of knowing the nature and consequences of the act. The Trial Court gave him the advantage of Section 84 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and acquitted him. This order was then challenged by the State Government and a Revision Petition was filed in the Bombay High Court.

Arguments made on behalf of the State of Maharastra

It was argued on behalf of the State that Subhashsing should not have been acquitted because it was provided under Section 335 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) that when the accused was acquitted on grounds of lunacy and where the finding states that he committed the alleged act, he should be detained in safe custody or in a lunatic asylum. It was thus argued that the Trial Court had not followed the proper course of law and therefore the order of letting off Subhashsing was erroneous.

Arguments made on behalf of Subhashsing

It was argued on behalf of Subhashsing that Section 335 CrPC was not mandatory. It was further contended that by filing the revision the State was challenging the acquittal of the accused.

Observations of the Court

The Court held that the language of Section 335 CrPC was mandatory in nature and the Trial Court had erred in acquitting Subhashsing. Further, it was held that the State was not challenging the acquittal in any manner but was only challenging the course adopted by the Court after the acquittal. Therefore, the order of the trial was to be set aside to a limited extent and directions were issued to follow the proper course.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 331, 332, 333, 335, 378 and 410 of the Criminal Procedure Code
  • Section 84 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code

Cases Referred:

  • Provincial Government vs. Krishna Gopala AIR 1945 Ngr.77

Top

Ansar Ahmad through Zaki Ahmad vs. State

Filed under: Sections 329 & 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Sections 323 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code
Appellants: Ansar Ahmad through Zaki Ahmad
Respondent: State
Citation: 34 (1988) DLT 223
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judges: Malik Sharief-Ud-Din

Facts

Ansar Ahmed who was undergoing treatment for schizophrenia was involved in a criminal case.  He had fled from his house on 8 August 1987 and was found in Kanpur and brought back to Delhi on November 17 1987.  On March 17, 1987 Zaki Ahmad, his father, had filed an application before the Trial Court stating that since his son was of unsound mind, the procedure laid down  in Section 329 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) should be followed in his case. A medical certificate showing that he was of unsound mind was also provided along with the application. Based on this application and the medical certificate, the accused was exempted from personally attending the Court and the proceeding had been adjourned to April 23, 1987. The doctor who had issued the certificate also had been examined.

However, on July 28 1987, the judge changed and the new judge dropped the proceedings under section 329 Cr. P.C and passed the order, which was challenged in the High Court of Delhi.

Observations of the Court

The Court expressed surprise that the Magistrate, in his desire to dispose off the cases should not have resorted to an undesirable procedure. Further, it was noted that the manner in which he had conducted himself was questionable. It was observed that the mandate was that if the accused was incapable of defending himself, the proceedings ought to be postponed until his capacities to make his defence were restored. The present Magistrate had without giving any reasons dropped the proceedings, which were being followed by his predecessor, which was very improper.

It was also observed that the order passed by the Magistrate against the accused was improper and uncalled for, and that he did not have any power to pass an order against an unsound mind. With the above observations, the petition was allowed. Further, the Magistrate was directed to conduct an enquiry into the application of Ansar regarding the unsoundness of the mind as per the provisions of Section 329 Cr. P.C and if it was found that he was of unsound mind he should postpone the proceedings as per the mandate of the provision under Cr. P.C.

Sections Referred:

  • Sections 329 & 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
  • Sections 323 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code

Top