Sheila Kaul Thr. Ms. Deepa Kaul vs State Thr. Cbi

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.

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:

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.

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 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.

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.