Sheila Kaul through Ms. Deepa
Kaul Vs. State through C.B.I.
Key
Points :
Mrs.Sheila
Kaul ,Former Central Minister facing charges under P.C Act &IPC ,sought an exemption
from personal appearance on account of her age and ill health [dementia ]
On
examination by Medical experts of AIIMS , 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 Court observed: " so it becomes very clear that accused
Sheila Kaul is capable of understanding questions put to her and giving
appropriate answers. Though, the questions might have to be repeated.”
-Remitted
back the matter to the High Court for a fresh disposal of the matter in accordance
with law.
Full Text of judgment:
Sheila Kaul through Ms. Deepa
Kaul Vs. State through C.B.I.
[Criminal Appeal Nos.1676-1677
of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) Nos.2364-2365 of 2013]
T.S. THAKUR, J.
Leave granted.
The appellant, a former minister in the
Central Government 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 of the Indian Penal
Code. Special Judge, CBI-I, Central Delhi, before whom the accused are being
tried has directed framing of charges against all of them including the
appellant herein by his order dated 2nd February, 2012.
By another order dated 9thMay, 2012, the
trial Court directed the appellant to appear in person to answer the charges
framed against her. That direction came despite an application filed by the
appellant in which it was, inter alia, pointed out that she was nearly 98 years
of age and is suffering from severe heart ailment and dementia which has
confined her to bed. She further stated that the appellant required help and
support even for her daily activities. She was, therefore, unable to travel to
the Court for getting her plea recorded.
A medical certificate as to her condition and
state of health was also filed along with the application that alleged that it
was not clear whether the applicant was in a condition to understand the
consequences of the order passed against her and whether she was, in fact,
suffering from dementia. The trial Court had entertained that application and
directed SP, CBI to produce the appellant before a medical board on23rd April
2012 for examination.
The Medical Board comprising of six doctors,
headed by Dr. S.K. Khandelwal, appears to have kept the appellant under
observation for four days and submitted a report dated 27th April, 2012 in
which it was concluded that the appellant was not suffering from any major
psychiatric disorder. The possibility of senile dementia could not, however, be
ruled out. It was also stated that the appellant was unable to comprehend
simple questions and provided monosyllabic responses after prolonged reaction
time, despite questions being repeated to her a number of times. The report
further suggested that the appellant's memory for immediate, recent and remote
events and information about day-to-day events was impaired. She was also found
to be suffering from hypertension, coronary artery disease, anaemia and
bilateral medical kidney disease.
The trial Court on receipt of the above
report asked the Director, AIIMS to depute two members of the medical board to
the Court to obtain a clearer picture of the situation. Pursuant to that
direction Dr. Achal Srivastava, Dr. Vijaydeep Siddharth and Dr. S.K. Khandelwal
appeared before the Court on 7th May, 2012 to make their statements. Dr. S.K.
Khandelwal alone, it appears, was examined by the trial Court who 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 Court
observed: " So it becomes very clear that accused Sheila Kaul is capable
of understanding questions put to her and giving appropriate answers. Though,
the questions might have to be repeated. Unfortunately for her, law does not
prescribe any immunity for aged people. She might be quite old but, but there
is no way out. Her absence has caused considerable delay and is holding up the
trial. I, therefore, direct accused Sheila Kaul to appear in person in the
Court on the next date of hearing. She may attend the Court in the same manner,
she visited AIIMS. She is to answer the charge to be framed against her and let
the matter proceed.
"The application filed by the appellant
seeking exemption from personal appearance to answer 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 by the refusal of the relief prayed
for by her, the appellant filed crl.M.C. No.1816 of 2012 before the High Court
of Delhi under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which she
assailed not only Order dated 2nd February, 2012 passed by the trial Court
directing framing of charges but also latter Order dated 9th May, 2012 by which
the trial Court directed the appellant to appear in person for getting her plea
recorded. The High Court has by its Order dated 20th February, 2013dismissed
the said petition holding that there was no room for interfering with the order
passed by the trial Court directing framing of charges against the appellant.
The present appeals assail the correctness of the said order.
When this matter initially came up for
admission before us on 2ndApril, 2013, we issued notice to the respondent
limited to prayer (b)mentioned in Crl. M.C. No.1816 of 2012 filed before the
High Court. We have accordingly heard Dr. Sumant Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for
the appellant who argued that 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 before it. The High Court has not, argued Mr.
Bhardwaj, adverted to the said order nor recorded any reason for declining to
interfere with the same. The impugned order, to the extent it dismissed
Crl.M.C. No.1816 of 2012 without even addressing the question raised by the
appellant relating to prayer (b) in the petition, was bad and deserved to be
set aside on that count alone.
There is in our opinion considerable merit in
the submission madeby Mr. Bhardwaj. The order passed by the High Court has not
examined the 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 under Section 329 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, yet it is evident from the averments made in
the application that the appellant was alleged to be incapable of making her
defence on account of her old age and multiple medical problems including
senile dementia.
The report of the medical board also prima
facie 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 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 Court attached to the report submitted by the medical
board and the deposition of Dr. Khandelwal. Suffice it to say that the process
of appreciation of material concerning the medical condition of the appellant
and her alleged incapacity to make her defence was inevitable. In as much as
the same has escaped the attention of the High Court, the order passed by it is
rendered unsustainable.
In the result, we allow these appeals set
aside the order passed by the High Court in so far as the same dismissed Crl.
M.C. No.1816 of 2012qua order dated 9th May, 2012 passed by the trial Court and
remit back the matter to the High Court for a fresh disposal of the matter in accordance
with law. We express no opinion as to whether the appellant can be said to be
of unsound mind within the meaning of Section 329 of the Cr.P.C. as also the
question whether the provisions of Section 318 Cr.P.C. can be invoked in case
the appellant cannot be said to be of unsound mind. It follows that the High
Court shall be free to take an appropriate view in the matter after hearing
learned counsel for the parties.
Since the trial of other accused persons is
also delayed on account of the pendency of the present proceedings, the High
Court is requested to expedite the disposal of the matter and pass orders as
far as possible within a period of three months from today.
.J. (T.S. Thakur)
.J. (VIKRAMAJIT SEN)
New Delhi
October 8, 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment