Gholam Yousaf v. The Crown PLD 1953 Lah. 213 ref. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)------Ss. 464 & 465---Accused incapable of making his/her defence due to mental illness---Prima facie subjective view formed by the Trial Court---Medical opinion--Whether the Trial Court could form a prima facie subjective view regarding the incapability of the accused to make his/her defence without the opinion of the medical expert---Held, that the terms "reason to believe" and "appears to the Court" used in Ss.464 & 465, Cr.P.C., were to be interpreted as a prima facie tentative opinion of the Court, which was not a subjective view based on impressions but one which was based on an objective assessment of the material and information placed before the Court or already available on record in the police file and case file--While forming a prima facie tentative opinion, the Court may give due consideration to its own observations in relation to the conduct and demeanour of an accused person---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. Whenever the trial Court was put to notice, either by express claim made on behalf of the accused or through Court's own observations, regarding the issue of incapability of accused to understand the proceedings of trial and to make his/her defence, the same shall be taken seriously while keeping in mind the importance of procedural fairness and due process guaranteed under the Constitution and the law. Terms "reason to believe" and "appears to the Court" used in sections 464 and 465, Cr.P.C. were synonymous and referred to a tentative opinion which had to be formed for the purpose of deciding whether or not to enquire into the issue of capability of the accused to face trial as a question of fact. The terms "reason to believe" and "appears to the Court" were to be interpreted as a prima facie tentative opinion of the Court, which was not a subjective view based on impressions but one which was based on an objective assessment of the material and information placed before the Court or already available on record in the police file and case file. While forming a prima facie tentative opinion, the Court may give due consideration to its own observations in relation to the conduct and demeanour of an accused person. Failure of the parties to raise such a claim, during trial, did not debar the Court from forming an opinion on its own regarding the capability of an accused person to face the proceedings of trial. In such a situation, the Court may rely on its own observations regarding the demeanor and conduct of the accused either before or at the time of taking a plea against the charge or at any later stage. The Court may take note whether he/she was being represented by Counsel or not and consider the material (if any) available on record which may persuade it to enquire into the capability of the accused to face trial. The Court may assess the mental health condition of an accused by asking him/her questions such as why he/she was attending the Court; whether he/she was able to understand the proceedings which were being conducted (trial); whether he/she was able to understand the role of people who were a part of the trial; the basic procedure may be explained to him/her to assess whether he/she was able to understand such procedure and whether he/she was able to retain information imparted to him/her; whether the accused was able to understand the act committed by him/her and what