Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 799

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
Central Bureau of Investigation – Appellant
Versus
Narottam Dhakad & Anr. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2592 OF 2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018)
With
Central Bureau of Investigation – Appellant
Versus
Sunil Singh & Anr. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2593 OF 2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10680 of 2022)
Decided On : 25-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Piyush Lakhanpal, Adv. Mr. Avinash Kr. Lakhanpal, AOR Mr. Dhiraj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Navin Kumar, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, A.A.G. Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, AOR Mr. Pawan, Adv. Mr. Dileep Kumar Dubey, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Section 272 of Cr.P.C. deals with only language of Courts under Cr.P.C. – Power of State Government is to determine for the purposes of Cr.P.C. what shall be language of Courts within State other than High Court – Power under Section 272 is not a power to decide which language shall be used by investigating agencies or police for the purposes of maintaining record of investigation.
(2) Charge-sheet filed within period provided either under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. or any other relevant statute in a language other than language of Court or language which accused does not understand, is not illegal and no one can claim default bail on that ground.
(3) Effect of error, omission, or irregularity in proceedings of trial – Only on the ground of such omission, absence, or error, ultimate finding, sentence or order will not be invalid unless a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 272 read with Sections 173 and 207 – Language of Court – Section 272 deals with only language of Courts under Cr.P.C. – Power of State Government is to determine for the purposes of Cr.P.C. what shall be language of Courts within State other than High Court – Power under Section 272 is not a power to decide which language shall be used by investigating agencies or police for the purposes of maintaining record of investigation – At the highest, for that purpose, provisions regarding law governing Official Language of State may apply subject to provisions contained in such enactment – In a given case, while prescribing a form as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 173, State Government may provide that charge-sheet must be filed in official language of the State – Wherever legislature intended, there is a specific provision incorporated requiring Court to mandatorily use language of Court in the proceedings – There is no such requirement laid down in respect of report/charge-sheet under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. – Charge-sheet filed within period provided either under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. or any other relevant statute in a language other than language of Court or language which accused does not understand, is not illegal and no one can claim default bail on that ground. (Paras 12, 15 and 19)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 464 and 465 – Effect of error, omission, or irregularity in proceedings of trial – Only on the ground of such omission, absence, or error, ultimate finding, sentence or order will not be invalid unless a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby – While deciding whether there is a failure of justice occasioned due to error, omission, or irregularity in trial, Court is required to consider fact whether objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in proceedings. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
Under Section 272 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, State Government has power to determine what shall be, for the purposes of Cr.P.C., language of each Court within a particular State other than High Court. As provided in Section 6 of Cr.P.C., there are various Courts in a State. The said Courts are the Courts of Session, Judicial Magistrates of the First Class, Metropolitan Magistrates, Judicial Magistrates of the Second Class, and Executive Magistrates.
Findings of Court:
In facts of the cases in hand, it cannot be said that a non-supply of translation of the charge sheet and other documents to the accused in both appeals will occasion a failure of justice.
Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. Leave granted.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

2. Under Section 272 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’), the State Government has the power to determine what shall be, for the purposes of CrPC, the language of each Court within a particular State other than the High Court. As provided in Section 6 of CrPC, there are various Courts in a State. The said Courts are the Courts of the Session, Judicial Magistrates of the First Class, Metropolitan Magistrates, Judicial Magistrates of the Second Class, and Executive Magistrates.

3. In these two appeals, we are dealing with charge sheets filed by the appellant Central Bureau of Investigation, in relation to offences arising out of the VYAPAM Scam in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Charge sheets have been filed for various offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 467 and 471 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Examinations Act, 1937. The first respondent in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5525 of 2018 filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate seeking a direction to supply a Hindi translation of the charge sheet filed by the appellant in English language. The contention of the first respondent accused was that he was unable to understand the charge sheet filed in English language. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that the first respondent was an educated person, having knowledge of English. Learned Judge pointed out that the offence related to fraud in the examination. The allegation is that after the first respondent received admit card, some other person took the examination by impersonating him. The learned Magistrate observed that the vakalatnama filed by the first respondent was in English and the first respondent has also signed in English. It was further held that the Advocate representing the first respondent had sound knowledge of the English language. Therefore, the learned Magistrate proceeded to reject the prayer made by the first respondent. The order of the learned Magistrate has been confirmed by the Sessions Court in revision. However, the High Court interfered by holding that Hindi was the only language of the Criminal Courts in the State and therefore, the first respondent was entitled to seek a translation of the charge sheet into the language of the Court.

4. The first respondent in Criminal Appeal, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10680 of 2022, is also an accused in the same case. He also made a similar application before the learned Magistrate which was rejected. The first respondent challenged the said order before the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment held that when a charge sheet was filed in the language unknown to the accused, he was entitled to translation of the charge sheet in the language which he understands.

5. The appellant the Central Bureau of Investigation has challenged both the impugned orders.

SUBMISSIONS

6. The submission of the appellant in both cases is that the accused were highly educated and had knowledge of the English language. Therefore, there is no prejudice to the accused if the charge sheet was in English language. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the charge sheets in VYAPAM Scam cases are very bulky and translation of the charge sheets into Hindi is a very timeconsuming and costly process.

7. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the accused is that in the exercise of powers under Section 272 of CrPC, the State Government has declared Hindi as the only language of the Criminal Courts in the State. Their submission is that the language Hindi is for the purposes of the Code and therefore, charge sheets filed under Section 173 of CrPC ought to be filed in the language of the Court. Therefore, both the accused supported the view taken by the High Court. The learned counsel appearing for the accused also submitted that in a given case if the accused is not convers