the witnesses were deposing about his/her act; and whether he/she was able to understand the evidence being produced by the prosecution against him/her. However a prima facie tentative opinion could not be formed by the Court only on the basis of such questions posed to the accused. The Court was required to objectively consider all the material available before it, including the material placed/relied upon by the prosecution. Ata Muhammad v. The State PLD 1960 (W.P.) Lah. 111; Sher Afzal v. The State PLD 1960 (W.P.) Pesh. 66; Abdul Hamid v. The State PLD 1962 (W.P.) Quetta 111; Munshi Khan v. The State 1982 PCr.LJ 778; Abdul Wahid alias Wahdi v. The State 1994 SCMR 1517; Fauqual Bashar v. The State 1997 SCMR 239; Sirajuddin v. Afzal Khan and another PLD 1997 SC 847; Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain v. The State 1995 SCMR 1249 and Moulvi Fazlul Qader Choudhury v. Crown PLD 1952 FC 19 ref. Once the Court had formed a prima facie tentative opinion that the accused may be incapable of understanding the proceedings of trial or make his/her defence, it became obligatory upon the Court to embark upon conducting an inquiry to decide the issue of incapacity of the accused to face trial due to mental illness. Medical opinion was sine qua non in such an inquiry. For this purpose, the Court must get the accused examined by a Medical Board, to be notified by the Provincial Government, consisting of qualified medical experts in the field of mental health, to examine the accused person and opine whether accused was capable or otherwise to understand the proceedings of trial and make his/her defence. The report/opinion of the Medical Board must not be a mere diagnosis of a mental illness or absence thereof. It must be a detailed and structured report with specific reference to psychopathology (if any) in the mental functions of consciousness, intellect, thinking, mood, emotions, perceptions, cognition, judgment and insight. The head of the Medical Board shall then be examined as Court witness and such examination shall be reduced in writing. Both the prosecution and defence should be given an opportunity to cross examine him in support of their respective stance. Thereafter, if the accused wished to adduce any evidence in support of his/her claim, then he/she should be allowed to produce such evidence, including expert opinion with the prosecution given an opportunity to cross examine. Similarly, the prosecution may also be allowed to produce evidence which it deemed relevant to this preliminary issue with opportunity given to the defence to cross examine. It was upon the consideration of this evidence procured and adduced before the Court that a finding on this question of fact i.e. the capability of the accused to face trial within the contemplation of sections 464 and 465, Cr.P.C. shall be recorded by the Court. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)------Chap. XXXIV---Prisons Rules, 1978, Chap. 18---Act of a person suffering mental illness/disorder---Words "Civil Surgeon" and "medical officer" used in Chapter XXXIV, Cr.P.C. and the Prisons Rules, 1978---Supreme Court directed that said words should be substituted by the relevant Legislatures with "Medical