Court" are used in section 465 while the words "has reason to believe" are used in section 464, but it is clear that in practical effect they mean almost the same thing. The phrase "to appear" in my judgment used in the context of section 465 in its meaning is nearest to the phrase "to be in one's opinion" as given in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. In Sher Afzal v. The State7, learned High Court while deciding an appeal against conviction and sentence under sections 302, 307, P.P.C. addressed a technical objection regarding failure on the part of trial judge to comply with erstwhile provision of section 4658 Cr.P.C. and observed as under:-"4. It will be noticed that if the trial Court wants to satisfy itself about the mental state of the accused person and his capacity to make his defence, then it is bound to enquire into the question with the aid of assessors and not alone, and on this point the provision of section 465 is mandatory. In the present case, the learned trial Judge enquired into the question of whether the accused was or was not capable of understanding the proceedings of the trial, but he did it without the aid of assessors. The learned Additional Advocate-General concedes that non-compliance with the mandatory provision of section 465 vitiates the trial. In Santokh Singh v. Emperor (AIR 1926 Lah. 498) their Lordships held the same view and ordered retrial on similar ground." In the case of Abdul Hamid v. The State9, while dealing with an appeal against conviction and sentence of death under section 302, P.P.C., the learned High Court while interpreting erstwhile provision of section 465, Cr.P.C. made following observations:"16. ......... There are two stages in the section. The first stage is that it must appear to the Court that the accused, placed on trial before it, was of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence. The next stage is of trying the question of unsoundness of mind which has to follow the first stage, namely, when it appears to the Judge that the accused was of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence. Then starts an enquiry into the second question, which has to be tried by the Court as a preliminary proceeding with the aid of the assessors ... ... The question, therefore, that remains for determination is, whether the Court was bound to hold an enquiry and try the question, whether the appellant was of unsound mind or not. In our view the mere making of an application on behalf of a person, committed for trial, that he was of unsound mind, is not sufficient to necessitate the holding of an enquiry. It must appear also to the Court that the accused may be of unsound mind and when it so appears, an enquiry is necessary and the question whether the accused is of unsound mind or not and incapable of making his defence, has to be decided with the aid of the assessors. The learned Sessions Judge, with a view to satisfy himself, put certain questions to the appellants and then came to the conclusion that he did not seem to be of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence. The examination of the accused was with a view to see if it appeared that he