MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs THE STATE

ORDER

' MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, J.-- The appellant was charged for descretion of Holy Qur'an under sections 295-A and 295-B, P.P.C. He was convicted under section 295-A, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer R.I. For ten (10) years and to pay fine of Rs,10,000 (ten thousand). In default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. For one year more. He was also convicted under section 295-B, P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was given to the appellant.

2. The present application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Has been moved for referring the appellant to Medical Superintendent, Mental Hospital, Giddu, Hussainabad, Hyderabad, to ascertain his mental capability at the time of commission of offence. It is contended that the appellant was mentally sick at that time.

3. We have heard Mr. Ahmed Ali Sheikh, learned counsel for the appellant and Syed Jalil Ahmed Hashmi, learned A.A.-G. On behalf of the State. The latter has opposed the request of the appellant.

4. The perusal of record shows that similar application was moved before the trial Court and it was dismissed. The order of the trial Court is reproduced herein-under in extenso for ready reference:-- "Order ' This is an application under section 464, Cr.P.C. Filed by the learned Advocate for the accused wherein, he has requested that the accused is insane and he may be sent to the Mental Hospital for medical treatment or check-up. The section provides that the accused may be sent to the Medical Board in case the Magistrate is satisfied and is of the opinion that it is necessary to send the accused for examination if he finds insane or lunatic but in this case the accused does not appear to be insane. At the time of remand he was put certain question to which he has replied normally that he is Primary School Teacher and has also appeared for B.A. Part Il Examination.

' Looking to the circumstances, this application is only for delaying the proceeding and. I am not satisfied that the accused is insane so that he be sent to the Mental Hospital for examination.

Accordingly, this application merits no consideration and is rejected and the case is ordered to proceed.

' Given under my hand and seal of the Court, dated 12-2-1999.

(Sd.) Salim Ahmed, Judge, Special Court Anti-Terrorism, Hyderabad and Mirpurkhas Division, Hyderabad."

5. It is well-settled that where Court finds that insanity is feigned one the Court is competent to reject such plea and it is not mandatory to send such accused for medical check-up and postpone the trial. The order of trial Court reproduced herein above bows that at the time of incident the appellant was serving as School Teacher and he had also appeared in B.A. Part II, Examination. In support of his application before the trial Court the appellant had filed affidavits of his kith and kin to the effect that he was mentally sick. No document from the head of any medical institute was produced in support of plea of insanity nor any certificate of any private medical practitioner or any Medical Officer of Government Dispensary was produced. Not even a single medical prescription was produced before the trial Court or this Court from which it could be deducted that the appellant was suffering from mental sickness or that he was of unsound mind.

6. The performance of duty by the appellant as school teacher and his appearing in B.A. Part-II examination in not controverted by the defence. Thus, these facts suggest that appellant was and is of healthy and sound mind.

7. In the case of Muhammad Akram v. The State 1979 PCr.LJ 614 it was observed that merely because the accused makes an application that he is of unsound mind is not sufficient for holding an enquiry under section 464, Cr.P.C. And 465, Cr.P.C. Where the Presiding Officer of the Court with a view to satisfy himself puts certain questions to the accused and then comes to the conclusion that the said accused did not seem to be of unsound mind and incapbale of making his defence it was right in not holding an enquiry under this section.

8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the application merits and no consideration d it is dismissed accordingly, alongwith the M.A. No,164 of 1999.

' GHULAM NABI SOOMRO, J.--- I have gone through the order of my learned brother Muhammad Roshan Essani, J.

' In the memo. Of appeal ground of insanity has been specifically urged. The appeals, under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, are to be heard and disposed of within seven days. Since, the point involved is likely to be reagitated at length at the time of hearing of this appeal as is evident from the memo. Of appeal, as stated hereinabove. This appeal may be heard and disposed of within few days from today. I agree to the dismissal of M.A. No,164 of 1999 on that ground alone without touching the merits and demerits of the same.