Thiru R. Karpura Sundara Pandian vs State

A. Arumughaswamy, J.—All the three Criminal Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner/accused against the order passed by the learned II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai, dated 10.12.2012, in Crl.M.P. Nos. 1153, 1154 and 1155 in C.C. Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 2010 respectively. The petitioner was working as Assistant Manager in IDBI Bank in Trichy Cantonment Branch and he is the accused for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the respondent police had laid the final before report before the trial Court and has also supplied booklet containing photostat copies of the final report, FIR statements of witnesses and documents supposed to be relied upon by the respondent police. Since the copies of FIR, Final Report and statements and witnesses supplied to the petitioner were in English language and not is in vernacular language, he filed the petitions before the trial Court u/s 207 Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P. Nos. 1153, 1154 and 1155 in C.C. Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 2010 respectively, requesting the trial Court to furnish the prosecution copies in Tamil version.

In that petitions, the petitioner stated that the prosecution copies have been furnished to him in English version. Since he is residing in Tamil Nadu, he requires the said copies in Tamil and his mother tongue is Tamil and hence, he prayed that the documents have to be furnished in Tamil.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the prosecution in that applications by stating that when the accused was working as Assistant Manager in IDBI Bank, in Trichy Cantonment Branch, he committed a fraud by collecting money from various innocent customers of the Bank and deposit the same in their fixed deposit accounts and later he transferred the said amounts in his name. For the same, a complaint has been filed. During the investigation, voluminous bank documents were collected from the bank as well as from various depositors and account holders which are mostly in English version. The statement of witnesses were recorded in English u/s 161 Cr.P.C. The petitioner/accused is well educated having completed B.Com., M.S. (Information Technology) decree from Bharathidasan University and the petitioner was recruited by the Bank on the strength of his better education and qualification and hence, the prosecution prayed that the petitions have to be dismissed.

After due enquiry, all the petitions have been dismissed by the trial Court.

Against which, the present Criminal Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the prosecution copies have to be furnished in Tamil version is mandate u/s 207 Cr.P.C. and the language of the trial Court is in tamil and therefore, the copies furnished in English is against the legal provision. Hence, he prayed that the copies have been directed to furnish in Tamil and the present Criminal Revision Petitions have to be allowed.

Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment in Ramayee and Others Vs. Muniyandi Konar and Others reported in 1978 MLJ 442 and the judgment in Rakesh Mittal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai reported in 1992 (2) MWN (Cr.) 172 and stated that as per Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Officials Languages Act 1956, the copies have to be furnished in Tamil.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases appearing for the respondent has relied on the judgment in Anbu @ Sivalingam Vs. State and contended that the accused was working as Assistant Manager in IDBI and he is M.S. decree holder and further he is the person who expected to write in English and understand the English language and as a Manager he has to pass through all the documents and discharge the duties only in English and the Bank correspondence is also in English. Hence, he prayed that the present Criminal Revision Petition has to be dismissed.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases and perused the materials available on records.

From the perusal of the records, it is seen that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager in IDBI and he is M.S. decree holder and he is the person who expected to write and understand the English language and as a Manager he has to pass through all the documents and discharge the duties only in English and the Bank correspondence is also in English. It is also pertinent to note that he has appeared for competition examination only through English medium and he is the person, who can be transferred throughout the country. Therefore, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is aware of English.

Now the point for consideration is as to whether the prosecution copies has to be furnished to the petitioner/accused in regional language u/s 207 Cr.P.C. is mandate or not?

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon two judgments. In Ramayee and Others Vs. Muniyandi Konar and Others reported in 1978 MLJ 442 and in which it has been dealt that the civil case judgment was delivered in 1976 in the regional language of Tamil Nadu and that has been set aside by the first Appellate Court and against which, the petitioner has been filed before this Court and this Court held that the pronouncement of judgment as per Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Official Language Act 1956 is permissible and on that basis the judgment has been concluded.

In the judgment in Rakesh Mittal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai reported in 1992(2) MWN (Cr.) 172 and in that case, the accused wanted to have a Hindi translation copies, whereas this Court has held that as per the Tamil Nadu Official Language Act, 1956, it has been ordered to issue copies only in Tamil.

As per Section 207 Cr.P.C. the copies what are defined in Section 207 Cr.P.C. have to be furnished to the accused at free of costs.

But here in this case, the accused is an English knowing person and he was working as Assistant Manager in IDBI Bank.

Even in the later portion of Section 207 Cr.P.C., it has been mentioned that considering the voluminous of the documents relied upon by the prosecution, if it can not be furnished at free of costs to the accused, he is entitled to inspect the records either by person or through his pleader.

From mere reading of the entire cumulative facts, it is seen that the copies has to be furnished in the language known to the accused has not been specified. But, here the copies have been furnished to the accused in the language known to him. Therefore, I am of the view that since the petitioner/accused is the Assistant Manager in IDBI Bank and he is the person, who has written the competition examination only in English and thereafter, he has been selected and now he has facing the charges for certain irregularities said to have been committed by him at the time of discharging his official duties in the official transactions in the Bank, he cannot rely on the Tamil Nadu Official Language Act and on which, no benefit can be derived to the petitioner and it is only for dragging of the matter.

Therefore, I am of the view that all the prosecution copies furnished in English is sufficient and it is only for the statutory requirement as per law. Hence, there is no need to interfere in the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petitions are dismissed. 16.07.2013