SHEILA KAUL THROUGH MS. DEEPA KAUL versus STATE THROUGH C.B.I.

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 231 · Decided: 08-10-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

_y;• 
'• ,, 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 231 
SHEILA KAUL THROUGH MS. DEEF"A KAUL 
v. 
STATE THROUGH C.B.I. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1676-77 of 2013) 
OCTOBER 8, 2013 
rr.s. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Prosecution 
A 
B 
for commission of offences punishable u/ss. 7, 9, 13 (2) rlw 
s.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and s.120-8 rl C 
w s.384 /PC-Application filed by accused-appellant seeking 
exemption from personal appearance to answer charges 
framed against her- Dismissed by trial Cowt - Order affirmed 
by High Court in petition filed by appellant uls.482 CrPC -
Held: Trial Court, despite the report of medical board and 
D 
deposition of Doctor, came to the conclusion that appellant 
was not of 'unsound mind' nor was she incapacitated by her 
age and illness - Since said finding had been specifically 
questioned by the appellant, High Court should have adverted 
to that aspect of the matter also - Process of appreciation of E 
material concerning medical condition of appellant and her 
alleged incapacity to make her defence was inevitable -
Inasmuch as the same escaped the attention of High Court, 
order passed by it unsustainable - Matter remitted back to 
High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with Jaw. 
F 
The appellant is being prosecuted for commission of 
offences punishable under Sections 7, 9, 13 (2) read with 
Section 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act and 
Section 120-B read with Section 384 IPC. The trial court 
(Special Judge, CBI) directed framing of charges against 
G 
all the accused including the appellant by his order dated 
2nd February, 2012. By another order dated 9th May, 
2012, the trial Court directed the appellant to appear in 
231 
H 
232 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 10 S.C.R. 
A person to answer the charges framed against her. That 
direction came despite an application filed by the 
appellant in which it was, inter a/ia, pointed out that she 
was nearly 98 years of age and suffering from severe 
heart ailment and dementia which confined her to bed. 
B The trial Court concluded that the appellant was capable 
of understanding questions put to her and giving 
appropriate answers although such questions may have 
to be repeated. The application filed by the appellant 
seeking exemption from personal appearance to answer 
c the charges framed against her was, on the above basis, 
dismissed and the appellant directed to appear in person 
in the trial Court by Order dated 9th May, 2012. 
Aggrieved, the appellant filed Crl. M.C. No.1816 of 
2012 before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC in 
D which she assailed not only Order dated 2nd February, 
2012 but also the latter Order dated 9th May, 2012. The 
same was dismissed by the High Court. 
In the instant appeal, the appellant contended that 
E the High Court had while dismissing Crl.M.C. No.1816 of 
2012 completely lost sight of the fact that apart from order 
dated 2nd February, 2012, the appellant had also assailed 
the correctness of order dated 9th May, 2012; that the 
High Court did not advert to the said latter order nor 
F recorded any reason for declining to interfere with the 
same. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court did not examine the 
G question whether the trial Court was justified in holding 
that the appellant was capable of understanding the 
questions that may be put to her and answering the same 
appropriately. While it is true that the application filed by 
the appellant did not, strictly speaking, bring her case 
H under Section 329 CrPC, yet it is evident from the 
SHEILA KAUL THROUGH MS. DEEPA KAUL v. 
233 
STATE THROUGH C.B.I. 
averments made in the application that the appellant was 
A 
alleged to be incapable of making her defence on account 
B 
of her old age and multiple medical problems including 
senile dementia. The report of the medical board also 
prima tacie suggested that the plea raised by the appellant 
was not wholly without any basis. The trial Court had 
despite that report and the deposition of Dr. Khandelwal 
come to the conclusion that the appellant was not of 
'unsound mind' nor was she incapacitated by her age 
and illness. All the same since the said finding had been 
specifically questioned by the appellant the High Court c 
should have adverted to that aspect of the matter also. 
Whether or not the appellant can be described to as a 
person of unsound mind would largely depend upon the 
value which the High 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.