Page 1

     REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.1676-1677   OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.2364-2365 of 2013)

Sheila Kaul through Ms. Deepa Kaul …Appellant

Versus

State through C.B.I. …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2.    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 9th May, 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  

1

Page 2

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 on 23rd April  2012 for  

examination.   

3. 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  

2

Page 3

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.

4. 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:

“11. 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.”   

5. The application filed by the appellant seeking exemption  

3

Page 4

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.   

6. 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, 2013 dismissed 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.

7. When this matter initially came up for admission before  

us  on  2nd April,  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  

4

Page 5

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.    

8. There  is  in  our  opinion  considerable  merit  in  the  

submission made by 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  

5

Page 6

medical problems including senile dementia.

9. 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.   

10. 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 2012 qua order dated 9th May, 2012 passed by  

the trial Court and remit back the matter to the High Court for  

6

Page 7

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.   

11. 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.

7