1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Writ Petition No. 238 of 2017
Petitioners : 1. Laxman s/o Zilbaji Taksande, aged
about 70 years, since mentally retarded,
through his son
2. Rahul Laxman Taksande, aged about
34 years, Occ: service,
Both residents of Bhumiputra colony,
Congress Nagar, Amravati
versus
Respondents : 1) The State of Maharashtra, through Police
Station Officer, P. S. Chandrapur(City), Chandrapur
2) The Civil Surgeon, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandrapur
3) Department of Psychiatry, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandrapur Shri A. D. Hazare, Advocate for petitioner Shri Neeraj Patil, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no. 1 ::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:33:52 ::: 2 Coram : S. B. Shukre, J Dated : 6th April 2017 Oral Judgment
1. Heard. Issue notice to respondent no. 1 only. Shri Neeraj Patil, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service for respondent no. 1. Notice to respondents no. 2 and 3 is dispensed with as they are formal parties. Rule. Heard forth by consent of learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no. 1.
2. Although this petition apparently challenges order dated 16.1.2017 passed below exhibit 1, a close perusal of this order shows that there is neither any direction issued nor is any order passed by the trial Court. At the most, it could be considered as memorandum of dialogue between the court and accused Laxman. This dialogue could have perhaps been used by the trial Court for assessing the over-all situation regarding the soundness of mind or otherwise of accused Laxman in the light of report submitted by the expert psychiatrist. In fact, in such a case the trial Court is obliged to consider entire material available on record and is not supposed to form its view in the matter only on the basis of answers given to it by the accused seeking postponement of trial or his discharge. Though such answers are relevant, they by themselves do not form sufficient basis for recording satisfaction in that regard by the trial ::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:33:52 ::: 3 Court. The reports of psychiatrist are also required to be considered together with the answers given to the court by the concerned accused. Even the demeanour of such an accused is required to be noted. Such exercise, it appears, has not been carried out by learned Additional District Judge, Chandrapur. It appears that the application filed as per exhibit 83 seeking postponement of trial or in the alternative, for discharge of accused Laxman is still pending. Of course, roznama of 19.1.2017 takes note of the fact that this application has been rejected by the trial court, such a noting in the absence of event having not actually taken place would have to be considered as imaginary and it is considered so. Roznama is only a mirror as to what happens in the court and is not equivalent to happenings in the court. In this view of the matter, I find that this writ petition deserves to be partly allowed by issuing a direction to dispose of application (exhibit 83) in accordance with law.
3. Writ Petition is partly allowed. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court and it is directed that the trial Court shall dispose of the application vide exhibit 83 by following procedure prescribed under Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to both the sides and shall thereafter proceed with the trial Court in such manner as may be determined by the fate of application vide exhibit 83. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
Authenticated copy of operative portion of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties. The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is requested to communicate this order to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, ::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:33:52 ::: 4 Chandrapur who is dealing with Special (ACB) Case No. 13 of 2005 by fax/e- mail as the case is slated to be fixed for final arguments tomorrow i.e. 7.4.2017.
S. B. SHUKRE, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:33:52 :::