IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT

T.S. Thakur, J.:-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 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 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 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