was of unsoundness of mind. The examination was in relation to the first stage and not the second stage. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that the examination of the appellant amounted to an enquiry in the second stage and the question of unsoundness of mind had to be determined with the aid of the assessors. We do not agree with this contention, as we consider that the examination related to the first stage with a view to see if it appeared to the Court that he was of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence. In this view we are supported by the decisions in Emperor v. Durga Charan Singh (AIR 1938 Cal. 6), Emperor v. Bahadur (AIR 1928 Lah. 796) and Nabi Ahmad Khan v. Emperor (AIR 1932 Oudh 190)..... 48. We may add that the afore-mentioned cases dealt with the erstwhile provision of section 465, Cr.P.C. which now stands substituted with the current provision through the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. Being relevant to the concept of fair trial, the existing provision of section 465, Cr.P.C. continued to enjoy the same attention as the erstwhile provision. The following cases are instances where sections 464 and 465 (after substitution) Cr.P.C. were once again subject of judicial interpretation. 49. In Munshi Khan v. The State10, it was argued that despite issue of appellant's incapacity to face trial and making his defence, the learned trial Court failed to make requisite enquiries as envisaged in section 465, Cr.P.C. The Court observed as under:"6. The language used in the sections suggests that prima facie when there was some evidence to believe or it so appeared, that an accused person was insane and consequently incapable of making his defence, it was enjoined upon the trial court to stop the trial and first hold independent inquiry into the question of such insanity. The words "has reason to believe" used in section 464 and the words "appears to the Court" used in section 465 are synonymous. In both the sections except that the forums are different, spirit of law is common. The discretion vested in the Magistrate or the Court has to be exercised in judicial fashion. The words "has reason to believe" "appears to the Court" are to be construed to suggest that there must be some tangible evidence of insanity of accused person. The belief of the Court must not rest on imaginative, speculative, hypothetical or arbitrary grounds. A tentative satisfaction of Court is a condition precedent to the inquiry in insanity. The trial Court is not obliged to stop trial and embark upon the inquiry or insanity merely on pointing out of defence counsel that accused was insane or when insanity was feigned. It should have its own satisfaction on the question." In Abdul Wahid alias Wahdi v. The State11, the procedure laid down in sections 464 and 465, Cr.P.C. attracted the attention of this Court and while interpreting these provisions, it was observed as under:".......Chapter XXXIV of the Criminal Procedure Code which contains sections 464 to 475 deals with the trial of a lunatic person. These provisions make it