1 W.P. (Cr.) No.652 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No.652 of 2024 ------ Lakshmi Kant Prasad, aged about 82 years, son of Late Shyam Sundar Prasad, resident of Qr. No.E. -137, Sector-II, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi; being represented by his son Dr. Arvind Kumar, aged about 57 years, resident of House No.1001, Tower No.4, Malibu Town, Sohna Road, Sector 47, P.O.-South City-2, P.S.- Sadar, District- Gurugram- 122018 (Haryana). … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Madhusudan Prasad Singh, son of Late Sital Prasad Singh, resident of National Public School, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi. … Respondents ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr. SC-I Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, AC to Sr. SC-I For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction(s) for quashing/set aside, with all consequences, the order dated 04.05.2024 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.492 of 2023 by which the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi upheld the order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 713 of 1999. 2 W.P. (Cr.) No.652 of 2024 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner who is an accused person of Complaint Case No.713 of 1999 filed a petition with a prayer to quash an order for constitution of Medical Board to determine the unsoundness of the mind of the petitioner invoking the power of the learned Judicial Magistrate- XIII, Ranchi under Section 329 read with 330 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi formulated the following two questions and the Medical Board answered the same as follows:- Qn. No. (i) Whether the petitioner- accused of Complaint Case No.713 of 1999 namely Lakshmi Kant Prasad is suffering from Alzheimer disease or not? Answer:- The petitioner/accused Lakshmi Kant Prasad is suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease Severe Grade (ICD-10/FOO1). Qn. No. (ii) Whether a person suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease may be treated as equal to a person who is suffering from unsoundness of mind or not? Answer:- A person suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease may not be treated as equal to a person who is suffering from unsoundness of mind. And after such report being received by the learned Judicial Magistrate- XIII, Ranchi, the learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi proceeded with the trial. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 17.08.2023 passed in complaint case No.713 of 1999 by filing Criminal Revision No.492 of 2023. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi relied upon the answer No.2 of the Medical Board that Alzheimer’s disease may not be treated as equal to a person who is suffering from unsoundness of mind and did not find any 3 W.P. (Cr.) No.652 of 2024 illegality in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi and dismissed the Criminal Revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prakash Nayi @ Sen vs. State of Goa reported in (2023) 5 SCC 673 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the whole idea under the provisions of Chapter-XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to facilitate a person of unsound mind to stand trial, not only because of his reasoning capacity but also to treat him as the one who is having a disability and the role of the court is to find the remedial measures and do complete justice. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta reported in (2012) 1 SCC 602 paragraph-19 of which reads as under:- “19. From the abovestated principles, it is clear that a person alleged to be suffering from any mental disorder cannot be exempted from criminal liability ipso facto. The onus would be on the accused to prove by expert evidence that he is suffering from such mental disorder or mental condition that he could not be expected to be aware of the consequences of his act. Once, a person is found to be suffering from mental disorder or mental deficiency, which takes within its ambit hallucinations, dementia, loss of memory and self- control, at all relevant times by way of appropriate documentary and oral evidence, the person concerned would be entitled to seek resort to the general exceptions from criminal liability.” and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in respect of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code has observed that inter alia if a person is found to be suffering from dementia, such person concerned would be entitled to seek resort to the general exceptions from criminal liability. 4 W.P. (Cr.) No.652 of 2024 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is an accused of complaint case No.61 of 2000 also and similar contention was made in that case too. Therefore, identical orders have been passed in both cases i.e. No. C-713 of 1999 and No. C-61 of 2000. It is next submitted that the Medical Board has not taken note of the relevant aspects of the report submitted by Ranchi Institute of Neuro-Psychiatry & Allied Sciences (RINPAS). It is next submitted that the Revisional Court has committed an illegality by taking into consideration only of the opinion of the three Members’ Medical Board to the effect that Alzheimer’s disease may not be equal to a person who is suffering from unsoundness of mind. It is next submitted that it has been mentioned in the book with the title- “A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology” that dementia is produced by degeneration of mental faculties after they have been fully developed and one of the type of dementia is Alzheimer’s disease and the petitioner is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. It is further submitted that the verbatim used by the Medical Board is that Alzheimer’s disease may not be treated as equal to a person who is suffering from unsoundness of mind and his symptoms clearly showed that the petitioner may be suffering from unsoundness of mind. 7. So far as the contention of the respondent No.2 in respect of Section 329 (1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same is a provision where the accused of the case is referred to a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist for care and treatment and in this case, the petitioner was never referred by the court to any psychiatrist or clinical psychologist for care and treatment. It is next submitted that an accused can be sent for care and treatment only if the Magistrate of court finds the 5 W.P. (Cr.) No.652 of 2024 accused of unsound mind but in this case, as yet the Magistrate has not found the accused to be of unsound mind, hence, the provision of Section 329 (1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable to the facts of the case. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a subsequent report dated 15.10.2024 has been obtained by the petitioner which indicates that the petitioner is not capable of understanding the legal proceedings. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this Writ Petition be allowed. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in this Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 draws attention of this court towards Section 329 (1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submits that Section 329 (1-A) which reads as under:- “329. Procedure in case of person of unsound mind tried before Court:- [(1-A) If during trial, the Magistrate or Court of Sessions finds the accused to be of unsound mind, he or it shall refer such person to a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist for care and treatment, and the psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, as the case may be shall report to the Magistrate or Court whether the accused is suffering from unsoundness of mind: Provided that if the accused is aggrieved by the information given by the psychiatric or clinical psychologist, as the case may be, to the Magistrate, he may prefer an appeal before the Medical Board which shall consist of— (a) head of psychiatry unit in the nearest government hospital; and (b) a faculty member in psychiatry in the nearest medical college.]” and submits that the proviso of the said Section 329 (1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure vests right to an accused of a case aggrieved by the information given by the psychiatrist or clinical psychologist to the Magistrate 6 W.P. (Cr.) No.652 of 2024 to prefer an appeal before the Medical Board and in this case, the petitioner, instead of filing an appeal before the Medical Board, straightaway came to this court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further submit that answer of the Medical Board to the question No.2 is in respect of the petitioner, who is the accused person of the case only and it is not a general statement. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the answer that Alzheimer’s disease may not be treated as unsoundness of mind is obviously having been made in respect of the petitioner and when the question No.1 was direct and specific as to whether Lakshmi Kant Prasad is suffering from unsoundness of mind, so, there is no scope for interpreting Alzheimer’s disease may not be treated as unsoundness of mind means; it may also suffer from unsoundness of mind. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that so far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta (supra) is concerned, the facts of that case are inter alia different from the fact of this case as the same dealt with the applicability of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code; which is not the case in this case as the petitioner has not taken the plea that at the time of occurrence, he was having unsoundness of mind rather the petitioner takes the plea that at the time of trial, his mind has become unsound. 7 W.P. (Cr.) No.652 of 2024 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, as the Medical Board constituted by the Civil Surgeon including a psychiatrist has submitted report in respect of specifically about the unsoundness of the mind of the petitioner and the conjoint reading of the answer of the two question, as already referred in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment, will go to show that the Board after examining the petitioner, who is the accused of the case concerned has opined that the petitioner is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease but such a disease may not be treated as equal to a person who is suffering from unsoundness of mind. So, in the backdrop of the fact that such a report was furnished when the matter was referred on an application filed under Section 329/330 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi; this Court is of the considered view that there is no scope for interpreting the answer that, the petitioner may be suffering from unsoundness of mind. It is also a settled principle of law that the power of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised as a second revision which is barred in law. 12. So far as the contention of the petitioner regarding the report dated 15.10.2024 is concerned, the same was never produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the subsequent report- the genuineness of which is yet to be verified, cannot be used as a ground to quash the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi impugned; which has been upheld by the Revisional Court in exercise of its power under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, this Court do not find any merit in this Writ Petition (Criminal). 8 W.P. (Cr.) No.652 of 2024 13. Accordingly, this Writ Petition (Criminal), being without any merit, is dismissed. 14. The interim order granted earlier vide order dated 05.09.2024 is vacated. 15. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 06th of January, 2025 AFR/ Saroj