satisfied of the fact, it shall record a finding to that effect and shall postpone further proceedings in the case. (2) The trial of the fact of unsoundness of mind and incapacity of the accused shall be deemed to be part of his trial before the Court. 45. Section 464, Cr.P.C. is relevant for trial of an accused before a Magistrate, whereas section 465, Cr.P.C. deals with the trial of accused before a Court of Sessions or High Court. It is clear from the provision of section 464 Cr.P.C. that if a Magistrate holding an inquiry or a trial, has reason to believe that the accused is suffering from mental illness and is consequently incapable of making his/her defence, he shall inquire into the fact of such mental illness, and shall also cause such person to be examined by a Civil Surgeon of the District or such other medical officer as the Provincial Government directs. Thereafter, he shall examine such Surgeon or other officer as a witness and also shall reduce the examination in writing. Under the provision of section 465, Cr.P.C. if any person before a Court of Session or a High Court appears to the Court to be suffering from mental illness and is consequently incapable of making his/her defence, the Court shall, in the first instance, try the fact of such mental illness and resulting incapacity. If the Court is satisfied of this fact, it shall record a finding to that effect and shall postpone further proceedings in the case. 46. A bare reading of sections 464 and 465, Cr.P.C. led us to consider the ancillary question "Whether the trial Court can form a prima facie subjective view regarding the incapability of the accused to make his/her defence without seeking the opinion of the medical expert?" 47. To address these legal questions, our attention has been drawn to the precedent case law wherein sections 464 and 465, Cr.P.C. have been interpreted. The first case in line is Ata Muhammad v. The State6. In this case, a Division Bench of the High Court interpreted sections 464 and 465, Cr.P.C. in an appeal against conviction and sentence awarded to Ata Muhammad under section 302, P.P.C. The main thrust of arguments of learned counsel for convict Ata Muhammad was his mental condition at the time of commission of offence, inquiry and trial of the case. The relevant portion of the judgment regarding this issue is reproduced herein below:"12...... The legal position which emerges from the two sections is that under section 464 the Magistrate must have reason to believe that the accused person before him is of unsound mind and incapable of understanding the proceedings, and under section 465 it should appear to the Court at the trial that the accused person suffers from unsoundness of mind and thus is incapable of making his defence. In either case the action is to follow the subjective reaction of the Magistrate or the Court to the situation that arises before him. If, during the inquiry, nothing comes to the notice of a Magistrate to induce a belief in him that an accused person is of unsound mind and if at the trial before the Sessions Court it does not appear to the latter that the accused is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, there is nothing for them to do except to proceed with the inquiry or the trial in the normal manner. The words "appear to the