Abdul Nazer Mahdani and Others vs State

B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.—This Criminal Revision case has arisen in this way:

There had been an instance of bomb blast in Coimbatore which rocked the whole country. There are about 154 accused involved and more than

2000 witnesses have been cited. The Petitioners are few of the accused. They filed Crl.M.P. No. 3 of 2000 before the trial Court u/s 277 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure praying for copy of police report and other documents in Malayalam. According to the accused - Petitioners who are

eight in numbers. They are from Kerala State that they are not well-versed in Tamil and that they know only Malayalam, and therefore a translated

copy of police report and other documents in Malayalam should be furnished to them.

The learned Public Prosecutor strongly objects this petition on the ground that in Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure it is not contemplated

for furnishing of translated copies. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the accused are entitled to the copies of the original police report

and original documents but the translated copy cannot be granted to them u/s 207 Code of Criminal Procedure.

Heard both the sides, The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in the interest of fair trial, documents should be furnished to the

accused m their vernacular, otherwise that would cause prejudice to the interest of the accused. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners referred to

the provisions of Section 220, 273, 277(b), 278(3), 279 and 281(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Counsel also referred to Articles

29 and 347 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also drew my attention to the unreported judgment dated

8.12.1998 rendered by A. Raman, J. in Crl.O.P. Nos. 14620, 14621 and 16888 of 1998. Wherein the learned Judge has held that there is no bar

u/s 207 Code of Criminal Procedure to furnish translated copy of document.

Per contra, Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that so far as the trial is concerned. Code of Criminal

Procedure envisages all necessary protection to the accused. In the sense because of the language barrier, his case should not suffer. The learned

Public Prosecutor drew my attention to the provisions of Sections 4-A and 4-B of the Tamil Nadu Official Language Act 1956. The

Recommendation of the forty first law commission report and also cited the following authorities: (i) In Re: Ramachandran and Another, (ii) In Re:

Rangaswami Goundan, (iii) Arputharaj v. State Etc. 1998 1 L.W. (Crl.) 379; and the decision rendered by me in Crl.O.P. No. 2030 of 2000 on

05.07.2000. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even the non-furnishing of the copies will not vitiate the trial and to stress his point,

referred to the decision reported in Rajendran and Anr. v. State 1992 (2) Crime 755.

The question that has arisen in this case is whether the Petitioners - accused are entitled to a translated copy of documents u/s 207 Code of

Criminal Procedure.

I will discuss about the provisions of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure some time later. But to understand the Code as to how far it

protects the interest of the accused. I may refer to other provisions to which the learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew my attention.

Section 228 Code of Criminal Procedure recites as under:

228 Framing of Charge (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid The Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the

accused has committed an offence which--

(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and. by order, transfer the case for trial to the

Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of

warrant-cases instituted on a police report:

(b) is exclusively triable by the court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause

(b) of Sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the

offence charged or claims to be tried.

It says that the charge should be explained to the accused.

At this juncture, it may be useful to refer to Forty-first Law Commission Report regarding the language of charge. Chapter 19.1 of the report

reads as under:

Language of charge: Sub-section (6) provides that in the presidency- towns the charge shall be written in English and elsewhere it shall be written

either in English or in the language of the Court. We see no justification at the present day to have a separate rule for presidency - towns and

recommend that there also the charge should be written either in English or in the language of the court. The code expressly provides (Sections

251A(4), 255(1) and 271) that in trails of warrant cases by magistrates as well as in sessions trials, the charge should be written cases by

magistrate as well as in sessions trials, the charge should be read and explained to the accused. These provisions are adequate to secure a fair

notice to the accused and there is no need to add a reference to the language of the accused in Sub-section (6).

Therefore at the commencement of the trial, when the charge is framed, it should be written by the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge concerned

and the charge should read and explained to the accused.

It is therefore crystal clear that the official language of the State of Tamil Nadu is Tamil. Therefore, the charge has to be framed in Tamil. If the

accused is not conversant with Tamil, such charge has to be read in Tamil and explained to the accused. Explanation would axiomatically mean that

it has to be explained to him in the language understandable to him. But if a copy of charge is sought for, it has to be given only as it is found in the

original. Explanation of the charge would take care of the interest of the accused. India is a multifaceted nation, which spreads over a vast extent

consisting of various kind of people having various cultures, languages and religions. It consists of a heterogeneous mixture of people following

various religions, various cultures in the pattern of dress, food, living style and also the languages. There are 18 official languages and many more

languages which are only spoken. Coming further down, there are millions of Indians who are illiterate, who can speak their language. Even there

they adopt different dialects. In the State of Tamil Nadu, We have Kongu Tamil, Madras Tamil, Nellai, Tamil Thanjavur Tamil etc which would

only go to show that even in one language there are several dialects. Several words, which we can give different meaning in different context the

accused, because explanation could be made only in the language which the accused could understand in whatever language the charge is framed.

A reference to the (Tamil Nadu) official Language Act, 1956 would also be useful at this juncture Section 4-A recites as under:

4-A Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 2, 3 and 4 of this Act or in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1980) or in

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974),Tamil shall be the language of all

(i) Civil and criminal courts subordinate to the High Court;

(ii) tribunals, and

(iii) rent courts and revenue courts for the purpose of recording evidence in all proceedings:

Provided that the Presiding Officer of any such court or tribunal may. in recording evidence in Tamil, employ English words and phrases, wherever

he feels necessary, to bring out the exact purpose and meaning:

Provided further that the High Court may be general or special order permit:

(i) any class of Presiding Officers of civil or criminal courts, or tribunals or

(ii) any Presiding Officer of any such court or tribunal to record evidence in English in such circumstances and for such period as may be specified

in such order:

Provided also that the Board of Revenue may, by general or special order, permit-

(i) any class of presiding officers of rent courts or revenue courts, or

(ii) any presiding officer of any such court.

to record evidence in English in such circumstances and for such period as may be specified in such order.

Explanation: this section and in Section 4-B, ''rent court'' or ''revenue court'' shall mean any court presided over by an officer of the Revenue

Department.

Section 4-B of the (Tamil Nadu) Official Language Act recites as under:

4-B (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 2, 3 and 4 of this Act or in the CPC 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) or in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), and subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), Tamil shall be the language of all-

(i) civil courts subordinate to the High Court;

(ii) criminal courts subordinate to the High Court;

(iii) tribunals and

(iv) rent courts and revenue courts,

for the purpose of writing judgments, decrees and orders:

Provided that the Presiding Officer of any such court or tribunal may, in writing judgments, decrees and orders in Tamil, employ English words and

phrases, wherever he feels necessary, to bring out the exact purport and meaning:

Provided further that the High Court may, by general or special order, permit-

(i) any class of Presiding Officers of civil or criminal courts, or tribunals, or

(ii) any Presiding Officer of any such court or tribunal, to write judgment, decrees and orders in English in such circumstances and for such period

as may be specified in such order.

Provided also that the Board of Revenue may, by general or special order permit--

(i) any class of Presiding Officers of rent courts or revenue courts, or

(ii) any Presiding Officer of any such court, to write judgments and orders in English in such circumstances and for such period as may be specified

in such order.

(2) The provisions of Sub-section (1) shall come into force on such date as the state Government may, by notification, appoint and different dates

may be appointed in respect of--

(i) civil courts subordinate to the High Court;

(ii) criminal courts subordinate to the High Court:

(iii) tribunals, and

(iv) rent courts and revenue courts.

From the foregoing provisions, it is made clear that with certain exceptions, Tamil is the official language to record evidence and to write

judgments.

Next comes Section 273 Code of Criminal Procedure regarding recording of evidence, which recites as under:

Section 273: Evidence to be taken in presence of accused. - Except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence taken in the course of the trial

or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused, or when his personal attendance is dispensed with in the presence of his pleader.

Explanation: In this section, ''accused'' includes a person in relation to whom any proceeding under Chapter III has been commenced under this

Code.

Section 277(b) Code of Criminal Procedure speaks of the language of the recording of evidence, which recites as under:

Language of record of evidence. In every case where evidence is taken down u/s 275 or Section 276,

(a) ....

(b) if he gives evidence in any other language, it may, if practicable, be taken down in that language, and if it is not practicable to do so, a true

translation of the evidence in that language of the Court shall be prepared as the examination of the witness proceeds signed by the Magistrate or

presiding Judge, and shall form part of the record:

As per this provision, when the evidence is given in the language of the Court It will be taken down in that language. I have already referred to me

official language Act. Therefore, if a witness speaks in Tamil, the Presiding officer is bound to record evidence in Tamil. If a witness gives evidence

in some other language, including English, it has to be taken down in some other language, but if it is not practicable, the evidence has to be truly

translated in the language of the court and such translation shall form part of the record. This provision applies only to oral evidence adduced in the

case and not to the documentary evidence. Thus even when evidence is recorded in any other language, a true translation thereof should be

prepared in the language of the court (in Tamil Nadu in Tamil) and kept with the record. Therefore, even here, the accused cannot seek a

translation of the deposition his vernacular.

Next, we come to Section 279 Code of Criminal Procedure which recites as under:

Interpretation of evidence to accused or his pleader. - (1) Whenever any evidence is given in a language not understood by the accused, and

he is present in Court in person, it shall be interpreted to him in open Court in a language understood by him.

(2) If he appears by pleader and the evidence is given in a language other than the language of the court and not understood by the pleader, it shall

be interpreted to such pleader in that language.

(3) When documents are put for the purpose of formal proof, it shall be in the description of the court to interpret as much thereof as appears

necessary.

Therefore, when the evidence is in a different language which the accused could not understand, then it has to be interpreted to him in the open

court in a language understood by him for him to understand as to what the witness has deposed. Here again, the interest of the accused is

safeguarded, in that what the witness has stated is brought to the knowledge of the accused, for him to understand.

The other provision is Section 281(3) Code of Criminal Procedure which recites as under:

281 Record of examination of accused:

(1) ....

(2) ....

(3) The record shall if practicable, be in the language in which the accused is examined or, if that is not practicable, in the language of the Court.

Therefore, even here, when the accused is examined, the memorandum of substance of examination of accused shall be in the language of the

court, but, if practicable, be in the language in which the accused is examined, the record has to be shown to the accused if he understands the

language or read over to the accused or if he does not understand the language in which it is written, it shall be interpreted to him in the language

which he understands.

Therefore, all the provisions pertaining to the trial referred to above, namely, Sections 228, 277(b), 288(3), 279 and 281(3) Code of Criminal

Procedure takes care of the interest of the accused, the literate semi literate and also the illiterate. Because at every stage, the contents of the

charge, evidence, the statement of the accused are all read over the explained to the accused in the language known to him.

Now, we come to the Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure is a new Section introduced in the

New Code of Criminal Procedure. Previously, as per the provision of old Code, there was a statutory duty on the police u/s 173(4) to furnish the

accused, free of cost, copies of the police report, the First Information Report u/s 174 and other documents or relevant extract of which the

prosecution proposed to rely including the confession statement recorded under Sections 164 and 161(3). But, in practice it was found that the

police could not furnish the copies to the accused in time, which caused delay. It was also found that the copies prepared by the police were

illegible and then, the Law Commission thought that the Magistrate should satisfy himself that copies supplied are all in such character that the

accused is able to read that and know the contents. The object is to enable the accused to defend himself properly. Later, the responsibility of

furnishing copies to the accused fell upon the Judicial Magistrate. In a way, it can be said that furnishing copies is a pretrial matter which should be

done by the police. Because certain pitfalls were found, in the police doing so the Judicial Magistrate was entrusted with the work of furnishing

copies.

The question is whether the Magistrate should furnish copies of the originals only or he should further evince interest in the matter of by

translating the copies of the police report and other documents in the engage known to the accused. I find several decisions in this regard.

In In Re: Ramachandran and Another, , where a careful reading of the judgment would go to show that the witnesses gave their statements in

Tamil, but the investigating officer recorded their statements in English and objection was raised that the copies of the English statements furnished

to the accused are not the original statements of the witnesses, because the witness spoke in Tamil and the investigation officer recorded the same

in English. A division bench of this Court consisting of Somasundaram and Ramaswami Gounder, JJ. has observed as follows:

The Statements in the case diary, though they are in English translations of the Tamil Statements, are statements made during investigation. To hold

otherwise on the ground that as the witnesses spoke in Tamil only the English translation is not a statement made by the witnesses during

investigation would on a parity of reasoning lead to the absurd result that the English translation of the statements recorded by the Judge as the

deposition of the witnesses could never be considered as depositions of those witnesses. If the statement were taken in tamil, they must be

preserved and copies of them must be given to the accused when he applies for copies of the statements u/s 162. If they are destroyed prejudice

maybe presumed and the accused will have to be acquitted.

In In Re: Rangaswami Goundan, , the same Division Bench which dealt with Ramachandran''s Case, has observed as under:

The code does not prescribe in what language the statements of witnesses must be recorded in the case diary by the investigation officers. The

accused is entitled to have copies of statements of witnesses recorded under Sub-section (3) of Section 161 and not translations of that record.

Failure to grant copies of such statements is a breach of a mandatory provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

That was a case where copies of the statement of P.W.5, the Doctor, who conducted the Post-mortem, recorded by the investigating officer was

not furnished to the accused. While holding that copy of such document should be furnished to the accused, the Division Bench observes that the

accused is entitled to the statement of witness as recorded on file and not translation of that recorded. But the accused was furnished English

translation of the statements recorded in Tamil in the case diary, and that was given to the accused. The learned Counsel for the accused therein

contended that the accused is entitled to have copies of the statement of the witness recorded under Sub-section (3) of Section 161 (Old Code of

Criminal Procedure) and not translation of that record. At paragraph No. 7 of the judgment the Division Bench has observed as under:

(7) It is conceded that what was granted to the accused was only copies of statements of witnesses translated into English and not copies of

statements in Tamil as recorded by the investigating officer. Witnesses made statements in Tamil both at the inquest and also subsequently but the

statements recorded at the time of the inquest were recorded in the case diary in the language of the witnesses, that is, in Tamil. Only later on their

statements were recorded in English though they spoke in Tamil.

The code does not prescribe in what language the statements of witnesses must be recorded in the case diary by the investigating officers. It is true

that the official language as also the language of the court at present is English. Still the Code does not direct that the statements of witnesses

recorded u/s 162 must be recorded only in English. If that were so even the statements of witnesses examined at the time of the inquest which are

undoubtedly statements made in the course of investigation should have been recorded only in English.

But they have not been recorded in English. They have all been recorded only in Tamil. This itself shows that there is no obligation cast on the

investigating officer to translate every statement made by a witness in Tamil into English and then record it in his case diary. Part of the statements

in this case has been recorded in Tamil. If so what is meant by furnishing to the accused copies of statements recorded under Sub-section (3) of

Section 117.

The Division Bench has extracted the following observations made in Willie (William) Slaney Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh,

that the Code is a CPC and like all procedural laws is designed to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by the introduction of

endless technicalities. The object of the Code is to ensure that an accused person gets a full and fair trial along certain well-established and well

understood lines that accord with our notions of natural justice.

The Division Bench has made the following observations also at page No. 512:

...But their Lordships at the same time have observed that under the Code certain things are regarded as vital. The question is whether an omission

to furnish copies of statements recorded in Tamil in the case diary is vital to the trial or not, especially when an English translation of the same has

been furnished....

Even the best translation in the world cannot take the place of the original. With the knowledge of English that the investigating officers possess, it

cannot be said with certainty that the translations must be true or correct. Errors are bound to creep in the English translations and the spirit and

force of particular expressions used by the witness in Tamil may not always be brought out accurately in the English translation. In fact the case in

In Re: Ramachandran and Another, , will be an instance in point.

In that case the statements translated into English and recorded in the case diary revealed certain discrepancies between them and the evidence

given in court. It appears that the statements made in Tamil did not reveal such discrepancies. The learned Sessions Judge discounted the

discrepancies observing that the English translation was not a record prepared on the examination of the prosecution witnesses.

The translation referred to obviously was not a correct one. Translations therefore are subject to errors. If, therefore, statements were recorded in

the case diary in the language of the witnesses, then furnishing translations of those statements will not amount to furnishing copies of statements

recorded in the case diary. In this case it is conceded that part of the statements was recorded in Tamil and copies of the same were not granted to

the accrued and in that sense not made available to the accused.

In Arputharaj''s case reported in 1998 1 L.W. (Cri.) 379 cited supra. Sidickk, J. has followed the view expressed by the Division Bench in In

re Rengasamy''s case reported in AIR 1957 Mad 506 cited supra, and held as under:

It follows from the above decisions that if the statements were recorded in the language of the witnesses then furnishing of translation of those

statements will not amount to furnishing copies of the statements as required u/s 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In short furnishing of

translation copies cannot be equivalent to the furnishing of copies as required u/s 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure. A plain reading of Section

207 of Code of Criminal Procedure will show that translation is not the duty of the Court and only furnishing of the copies is the duty of the Court.

In the present case not prejudice was caused to the Petitioner/A4 since it is not stated nowhere hi the affidavit of the Petitioner that his advocate

did not know English and so he was not able to translate such of these documents in English in to Tamil to the Petitioner/A4.

Following the view expressed by the Division Bench in In Re: Rangaswami Goundan, , and in Arputharaj''s case reported in 1998 1 L.W.

(Crl.) 379 cited supra. I have also expressed my concurrence with the decisions rendered by the Division Bench and the single Judge in an

unreported judgment rendered in Crl.O.P. No. 2030 of 2000 on 05.07.2000.

It should not be lost sight of that a contrary view has been expressed by A. Raman, J. in Crl.O.P. Nos. 14620, 14621 and 16888 of 1997 on

08.12.1998. That was a case where the accused submitted that she was not well versed in English and therefore Tamil Translation of copies be

furnished to her, then. Tamil was the official language of the Court. The learned Judge referred to the International Covenant on civil and Political

Rights in paragraph No. 12 of the judgment and observed as under:

The matter has to be viewed from another angle as well. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted and opened for

signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly Resolution 2200 A (XXI) of 16 December 1966. It states that the said covenant had

entry into force on 23rd March 1976 in accordance with Article 49....

According to the learned Judge. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has force of the rule of law and that ought to be

followed.

(i) Reference to Article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights lays down that all persons shall enjoy equality before

the Courts and tribunals, that is, all accused shall be treated alike. This is well followed in our country and such right is guaranteed by the

Constitution of India.

(ii) Article 14(2) says that every person charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty

according to law. The corner stone of the edifice of our Criminal Jurisprudence is based on this presumption and there can be no dispute that this is

also given effect to as a rule of law.

(iii) Considering Article 14(3) in the determination of any criminal charge against him. everyone shall be entitled to (a) to be informed promptly

and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him. This has been writ large as a law u/s 228(2)

Code of Criminal Procedure.

But coming to the pretrial position of furnishing charges, this covenant does not mention anything, in other words, there is no say as to the

language in which the copies should be furnished. The learned Judge has considered the earlier Division decisions reported in re Ramachandran''s

case reported in AIR 1957 Mad 505 cited supra and In Re: Rangaswami Goundan, . The learned Judge has stated that Their Lordships have

distinguished the earlier decision rendered in In re Ramachandran''s case, in that Their Lordships have held in In re Rangaswami''s case as under:

Even the best translation in the world cannot take the place of the original. With the knowledge of English that the investigating officers possess, it

cannot be said with certainty that the translations must be true or correct. Errors are bound to creep in the English translations and the spirit and

force of particular expressions used by the witness in Tamil may not always be brought out accurately in the English translation. In fact the case in

In Re: Ramachandran and Another, will be an instance in point. (Cited supra).

In that case, the statements translated in English and recorded in the case diary reveal certain discrepancies between them and the evidence given

in Court. It appears that the statement made in Tamil did not show such discrepancy.

Referring to decision rendered by Sidickk, J. reported in Arputharaj''s case reported in 1998 I L.W. (Cri.) 379 cited supra.

A. Raman, J. in Crl.O.P. No. 14620, 14621 and 16888 of 1997 has observed that at the time when Sidickk, J. passed orders, the case before A.

Raman, J. was pending arguments and had it been brought to the knowledge of S.M. Sidickk, J., he would have made arrangements so that both

the matters were heard together by one and the same Judge. That was a passing remark. But, A. Raman, J. has differed with the Sidickk.J. holding

that S.M. Sidickk, J. has not taken into account that accused must be made to understand the proceedings in the language known to him, that the

judgment has been rendered in overlooking the Inter Covenant which is a rule having the force of a statute and therefore, the judgment is a

judgment per incuriam.

With due respect to the noble Judge, I submit that I could not subscribe my accent to the view expressed by the noble Judge for the following

reasons:

Firstly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has gained force of law on 23 rd March, 1976. Article 14 of the International

Covenant does not speak anything about the furnishing of the copies. Firstly, all that it says is, all accused should be treated equally before the

courts and tribunals:

Secondly All persons already charged with criminal offences should be presumed to. be innocent until proved guilty:

Thirdly, in the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to be informed promptly and detailed in a language which

the accused understands the nature and cause of the charge against him.

The International Covenant speaks of the rights of a person facing the trial. But, it does not say anything about the pretrial stage of furnishing

copies.

In In Re: Rangaswami Goundan, cited supra, the Division Bench has extracted the following observations made in Willie (William) Slaney Vs.

The State of Madhya Pradesh, .

that the Code is a Code of Procedure and like all procedural laws is designed to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by the

introduction of endless technicalities. The object of the code is to ensure that an accused person gets a full and fair trial along certain well-

established and well understood lines that accord with our notions of natural justice. (cited supra).

The Division Bench has made the following observations in Page 512 of the judgment:

...But, their Lordships at the same time have observed that under the Code certain things are regarded as vital. The question is whether an omission

to furnish copies of statements recorded in Tamil in the case diary is vital to the trial or not, especially when an English translation of the same has

been furnished. There is no guarantee that the English translations of the statements recorded in Tamil are true and correct.

Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure envisages copies of documents. Even the interest of illiterate person is taken care of during the trial

proceedings as envisaged under Sections 228, 277(b), 278(3), 279 and 281(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. But what if copies of documents are

furnished to the illiterate persons? Can he seek time to enable him to become literate and well versed in a particular language in which the

documents are found, for him to understand the same. If the language of the accused does not have a script, but it is only a spoken language, how

to furnish translated copy of the document in me language of the accused? As pointed out by the Division Bench in In re Rangaswamy''s case that if

the originals are in a particular language translation may give room for creeping in of errors. Further, translated documents by itself will be the

originals. It cannot be classified as copy of the original. That is why the framers have left this option open to the Court and the accused, in that the

Court has to furnish only copy of the original. It is for the accused to exert himself to find out as to the contents of the documents.

A. Raman, J. has held in Crl.O.P. Nos. 14620, 14621 & 16888 of 1997 that Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure does not bar

furnishing a translated copy. A harmonious reading of Section 207 with the second proviso would clearly indicate that there is no area left in

Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure for furnishing of translation copies. In an unreported judgment rendered by me in Crl.O.P. No. 2030 of

2000. In paragraph 10, I have stated as under:

Let us consider the second proviso to Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure which recites as under:

Provided further that if the magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in Clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the

accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only by allowed to inspect it. Supposing, if a document falling under this category of voluminous

document is in a different language, what is the accused going to do? Can he ask for a copy? Can he ask for a translated copy of the document in

law? He has to take the pain of perusing the document of his own accord or through his Counsel. A combined reading of Section 207 Code of

Criminal Procedure with the provisos to it would go to show that the duty of the Court is to furnish a copy of the document in whatever language

they are found and if they are voluminous, to allow the accused to peruse the document.

That case has arisen from State of Pondicherry where the predominant language is French. The accused had sought for translation copy of the

documents in Tamil when some of the documents are in English.

The march of law is such that non-furnishing of copies is not an illegality, but it is only an irregularity under certain circumstances. In Rajendran

and Anr. v. State 1992 (2) Crimes 755 it has been observed that non furnishing of copies will not vitiate the trial.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners drew my attention to the provisions of constitution enshrined in Articles 29 and 347. Article 29 of the

Constitution of India recites as under:

29.(1) Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall

have the right to conserve the same

(2) No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only

of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.

The purport of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India was to confer fundamental rights on certain sections of the communities consisting a

minority community regarding education and cultural matters. That would not apply to criminal matters.

Article 347 of the Constitution of India recites as under:

347 on a demand being made in that belief the president may, if he is satisfied that a substantial proportion of the population of a State desire the

use of any language spoken by them to be recognized shall also be officially recognized throughout that State or any part thereof for such purposes

as he may specify.

A. Raman, J. has referred to certain decisions reported in C.B. Gautam v. Union of India and Ors. II 1992 (6) SC 678; Peoples Union For

Civil Liberties v. Union of India 1997 SCC (Crl) 434 ; Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. L.K. Ratna and Others, and Harikisan Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Others, . Sidickk, J. in Arputharaj''s case, cited supra, has distinguished these decisions and pointed out as to how

they are not applicable to the question on hand requiring answer. Those are the cases where a detenu under the National Security Act and other

Special Laws was served with the grounds for his detention, which was in English language. Needless to point out that in case of detenues, they are

not entitled to have legal advise through their advocates. They have to understand the grounds and give their reply. Only under those

circumstances, it has been held that the grounds should be supplied to the detenue in the language known to him. Here the accused have ample

opportunity of engaging of an advocate of their own or and the Court would take care of engaging an advocate who is well versed in English, Tamil

and Malayalam, who can take care of the interest of the accused as a state brief. After all, Code of Criminal Procedure protects the interest of the

accused and not the welfare of the accused, for the Code to take care of the accused and consider his comforts at every stage right from the

setting the criminal law in motion till the end of the proceedings. I agree with the view expressed by the Division Bench in In Re: Rangaswami

Goundan, and also S.M. Sidickk, J. in Arputharaj''s case reported in 1998 1 L.W. (Cri.) 379.

In view of the above matter, I consider this Criminal Revision has to be dismissed. Accordingly the criminal Revision is dismissed consequently

Crl.M.P. No. 3950 of 2000 is also dismissed.