High Court Kerala High Court

Satheesan vs State Of Kerala on 29 May, 2009

Kerala High Court
Satheesan vs State Of Kerala on 29 May, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 1746 of 2009()


1. SATHEESAN,AGED 56 YEARS,KALLINGAL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJIT

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :29/05/2009

 O R D E R
              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

              ------------------------------------------
               CRL.M.C.NO. 1746 OF 2009
              ------------------------------------------

                Dated        29th     May 2009


                           O R D E R

This petition is filed by the accused in

Crime 845/2008 of Vatanappilly police station in

anticipation of an action by learned Magistrate, not

in accordance with the procedure provided under Code

of Criminal Procedure. According to the petitioner he

is suffering from mental illness evidenced by

Annexure-A certificate and when he surrenders before

the learned Magistrate, Magistrate is bound to

consider the application for bail as provided under

Chapter XXV of Code of Criminal Procedure and a

direction is to be issued as provided therein.

2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner

and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

3. Argument of the learned counsel

appearing for petitioner is that as the case is under

investigation stage, when the accused appears before

the Magistrate, he will proceed against just like

an ordinary accused and there is a likelihood of not

CRMC 1746/09
2

proceeding as provided under Section 328 of Code of

Criminal Procedure and therefore a direction is to be

issued.

4. Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal

Procedure contains the provisions as to accused

persons of unsound mind. Under Section 328, when a

Magistrate holding an inquiry has reason to believe

that the person against whom the inquiry is being held

is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of

making his defence, the Magistrate shall inquire

into the fact of such unsoundness of mind and shall

cause such person to be examined of the civil

surgeon of the district or such other medical

officer as the State Government may direct and if

the Magistrate is of the opinion that the said

person referred is of unsound mind and consequently

incapable of making his defence he shall record that

finding and shall postpone further proceedings.

Section 329 is the procedure to be complied at the

stage of trial. Section 330 provides for release of

persons of unsound mind pending investigation or

trial. Under Sub section 1, whenever a person is found

CRMC 1746/09
3

under section 328 or 329 to be of unsound and

incapable of making his defence the Magistrate or the

court may release him on sufficient security being

given that he shall be properly taken care of and

shall be prevented from doing injury to himself or

to any other person, and for his appearance when

required before the Magistrate or court or such

officer as the Magistrate or court appoints in this

behalf. Section 328 is the provision to be applied

when the Magistrate is holding an inquiry and finds

that there is reason to believe that the person

against whom the enquiry is being held is of unsound

mind. Section 329 applies to a case where at the

time of trial, it appears to the Magistrate or court

that the person facing trial is unsound mind. If

Section 328 or 329 applies then Magistrate is bound

to proceed under Section 330 of Code of Criminal

Procedure. In this case the Magistrate is neither

holding a trial or an inquiry. If so, Section 328 and

330 of Code of Criminal Procedure do not apply at

this stage. I do not find any reason to hold that the

Magistrate will not proceed in accordance with law. In

CRMC 1746/09
4

such circumstances, I find no reason to give any

direction as sought for.

Petition dismissed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.

uj.