Bombay High Court
Laxman S/O. Zilbaji Taksande Thr. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 6 April, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
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
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
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,
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
