Delhi High Court
Amarjeet Singh vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 March, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 30th March, 2012
+ CRL.M.C. 168/2012
AMARJEET SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, Mr. Tarun Shokeen,
Mr. Sanjay Hooda and Mr. Janesh Singh, Advs.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Notice issued.
2. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.
3. With the consent of the parties instant petition is taken for final
disposal.
4. Vide the instant petition, petitioner has assailed the impugned order
dated 23.02.2012 passed by ld. Addl. Sessions Judge on an application being
moved by the petitioner under Section 330 Cr.P.C. for postponement of trial
and to release the petitioner.
5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the medical document
i.e. OPD Card no. 2011-8-32784 dated 01.10.2011 in which it has been
observed by Dr. Vijender Singh IHBAS (Institute of Human Behaviour and
Allied Sciences) found some psychiatric illness. On account of which he has
been referred to certain measures which are prescribed on the out-door
patient card.
6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has referred Section 329 and Section
330 Cr.P.C. whereby it is provided that no order for the detention of accused
in a lunatic asylum shall be made otherwise than in accordance with such
rules as the State Government may have made under the Indian Lunacy Act,
1912 (4 of 1912)."
7. Ld. Trial Judge, on perusal of the medical prescription issued by
IHBAS for petitioner / accused, was of the opinion that it does not bring on
record the attributes of the unsoundness of the mind of the petitioner /
accused to the extent that in case proceedings are allowed to be continued
and it may impact on his defence. The view of the ld. Judge has been
precisely for the reasons that he is appearing in court regularly. Moreso, he
was recruited in Delhi Police 1½ years back from the date of commission of
offence, after having medically examined at the instance of Delhi Police
Department. Therefore, ld. Trial Judge finds no merit for not to proceed
further.
8. I am of the considered opinion, when such a situation arises before the
court, proper recourse would be to get the report from the specialist and
thereafter examine the Doctor to substantiate the examination conducted on
the accused.
9. In the instant case, the ld. Trial Judge has become a super Doctor and
gave the opinion, while passing the impugned judgment. In fact, Judges are
not expert or have medical knowledge.
10. Therefore, I set aside the order dated 23.02.2012 and direct the ld.
Trial Judge to get the petitioner / accused examined from specialist/Medical
Board and follow the procedure as prescribed under Section 328 Cr.P.C. to
325 Cr.P.C.
11. Till then proceedings before the trial court shall remain stayed.
12. Accordingly, Crl. Rev.P. 168/2012 is allowed.
13. Since the main petition is allowed, Crl. M.A. 3955/2012 (Stay)
become infructuous and disposed of as such.
14. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 30, 2012
Jg
