Unsoundness of mind and committal: Magistrate must first inquire into capacity to defend before proceeding with committal.

When an accused before a committing Magistrate raises a credible plea of present unsoundness of mind and supports it with material, the Magistrate must first decide whether there is reason to believe the accused is incapable of making his defence. If that threshold is met, the statutory inquiry and medical examination are mandatory before committal. Here, repeated applications and medical certificates required such an inquiry, and the earlier examination did not give a definitive opinion but indicated the need for further observation. The Magistrate therefore could not proceed to committal without complying with Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The committal proceedings were vitiated and the orders below were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether, when an accused before the committing Magistrate alleges present unsoundness of mind and produces material in support, the Magistrate is bound to first inquire whether there are reasons to believe that the accused is incapable of making his defence before proceeding with committal.

Analysis: Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 makes the Magistrate's first duty to decide, on the materials before him, whether there is reason to believe that the accused is suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of inquiry and is therefore incapable of making his defence. If such reason exists, the Magistrate must hold the statutory inquiry and secure medical examination. The materials placed before the Magistrate, including repeated applications and medical certificates, required such a threshold inquiry. The High Court and the Magistrate were in error in treating the medical examination and the earlier orders as having exhausted the requirement, because the report obtained did not furnish a definitive opinion and in fact suggested further observation. The Magistrate could not proceed to committal without first complying with the mandatory inquiry contemplated by the section.

Conclusion: The Magistrate failed to hold the required inquiry under Section 464 before committing the appellant, and the committal proceedings were vitiated; the appeal was allowed and the committal order and the High Court's order were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: When an accused before a Magistrate raises a credible plea of present unsoundness of mind, the Magistrate must first determine whether there is reason to believe the accused is incapable of making his defence and cannot proceed with committal without conducting the statutory inquiry prescribed for that purpose.

---