1979 P (PLP)

Abdul Hamid v. The State P L D 1962 Quetta 111 ref. Ch. Muhammad Anwar Ghuman for Petitioner. Khalil Ramdey, Asstt. A.-G. for the State. Fateh Din father of Muhammad Akram accused who is prosecuted for an offence under section 302 off the Pakistan P Code has moved this petition against the order. dated 22-3-1979 passed the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala. He had moved an application be the learned Sessions Judge praying that as the accused was of unsound lie may be got medically examined. The learned Sessions Judge called report from the Medical Superintendent who reported that the ace was a mentally normal person. He then moved another application requesting the Court to have the accused examined by an expert of the Mental Hospital, Lahore, but the same was rejected.

2. The learned counsel contends that as the Medical Superintendent was not a specialist in the field, the learned Sessions Judge should have got the accused examined by a specialist of mental 'diseases. The contention is without force. The procedure on the point is given in section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which lays down that if any person before a Court of Sessions appears to the Court at his trial to be of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, the Court shall, in the first instance, try the fact of such unsoundness and incapacity and if the Court is satisfied of the fact, it shall record a finding to that effect and shall postpone further proceedings.

3. The mere making of an application on behalf of an accused person that he was of unsound mind, is not sufficient to necessitate the holding of an inquiry. It must appear also to the Court that the accused may be of unsound mind and when it so appears, only then an enquiry becomes necessary. This was the view of a Division Bench in Abdul Hamid v The State (P L D 1962 Quetta 111). 1n the present case there was nothing to show that it, in fact, appeared to the Court that the accused was of unsound mind. The mere tact that the Court, on the application made on behalf of the accused, got a report from the Medical Superintendent, does not necessarily show that the learned Sessions Judge himself entertained any doubt on the soundness of the accused. In the circumstances it was not necessary for him to have the accused examined by an expert at this stage. I, therefore, do not consider that the impugned order suffers from any illegality.

4. The petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. However, it may be observed that the learned Sessions Judge will not 'be precluded' from making an inquiry as envisaged under section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if it appears to him necessary, at the trial. Petition dismissed.