2010 Supreme(Kar) 1034

2011 (4) KCCR 3184
High Court of Karnataka
SUBHASH B.ADI
Selvi J Jayalalithaa
Versus
State Represented by the Superintendent of Police, DV & AC, Chennai
Criminal Petition No.3748 of 2010 c/w Criminal Petition No.3766 of 2010
Decided on: 23-11-2010

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PETITION - SECTION 120-B IPC READ WITH SECTION 13(2) READ WITH SECTION 13(1) CLAUSE (E) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - ACCUMULATION OF WEALTH OF RS.66.65 CRORES DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE KNOWN SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ACCUSED NO.1 - TRANSFER OF CASES FROM TAMIL NADU TO KARNATAKA - SCRAPPING OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION AND FOR MAKING DENOVO TRANSLATION - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - DIRECTIONS ISSUED FOR APPOINTMENT OF EXPERTS ONCE AGAIN IS HEREBY SET ASIDE - LIBERTY IS RESERVED TO THE PROSECUTION AND THE ACCUSED TO POINT OUT THE DEFECTS, MISTAKES, OMISSIONS OR ADDITIONS, ETC., IF ANY, TO BE MADE IN THE TRANSLATION AND IF SUCH MISTAKES ARE POINTED OUT, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL CONSIDER THE SAME AND CORRECT THE TRANSLATION OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE WITNESSES AND THE DOCUMENTS, WHICH ARE TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH FROM TAMIL.

Fact of the Case:

Between 1991 to 1996 the accused No.1 was the Chief Minister of State of Tamil Nadu, she represented a political party by name ‘All India Anna D.M.K. (AIADMK)’. She was defeated in general election in 1996 and another political party by name ‘D.M.K.’ was voted to power. Complaint was filed alleging that, the accused No.1 committed offence by abusing the official position. On the basis of the complaint, and on investigation, accused No.1 and others were charge sheeted for an offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) clause (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation of accumulation of wealth of Rs.66.65 crores disproportionate to the known source of income of the accused No.1, on filing of the charge sheet, the jurisdictional Court took cognizance and a criminal case was registered in C.C.No.7/1997 against accused No.1 and others. Another case was registered for offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC read with Section 13 sub-section (2) further read with Section 13 clause (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for acquisition and possession of pecuniary resources and property outside India disproportionate to the known source of income by resorting to clandestine transfer of funds belonging to the accused No.1 with the help of accused No.2 therein from India to outside country by violating the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. In this regard, another criminal case was registered in C.C.No.2/2001.

Finding of the Court:

The evidence already on record is in the language of that court, now on transfer, there is a change in the language and it requires a translation of the said evidence and the translation has been done in the light of the undertaking given by the State of Karnataka before the Apex Court. There is also no illegality or irregularity in filing of the translation of the deposition of the witnesses and document, which are in Tamil.

Issues: Whether the evidence recorded by the Special Court constituted by Tamil Nadu Government in the trial of C.C.Nos.7/1997 and 2/2001 now numbered as Special C.C.Nos.208/2004 and 209/2004 require to be scrapped in view of the transfer of the cases from the State of Tamil Nadu to State of Karnataka, as the evidence recorded is not in the language of the court in Karnataka?

Ratio Decidendi: The trial court having found that there is no reasonable ground to do denovo trial of recording the evidence of the witnesses nor there is any ground to do denovo translation, has given liberty to the accused to rectify the defects, if any, by calling the persons, who are not connected to the said translation work or to refer the same to some other expert, who is well-versed in both languages Tamil and English and further ordered for choosing the name of the expert by both the sides, if the accused prefers to get the help of the expert to rectify the alleged defects or the mistakes in the English version. The effect of this direction would result in delay in conducting the trial. When there is already evidence in its original form, the defect in translation as observed above, could be rectified as and when it is pointed out at appropriate stage. For the purpose of getting the corrections in the translation, the trial need not wait, as the translations are not necessary for the recording of further evidence of other witnesses.

Final Decision: Criminal Petition No.3766/2010 filed by the State is allowed. The direction issued for appointment of experts once again is hereby set aside. Criminal Petition No.3748/2010 filed by the accused No.1 is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the prosecution and the accused to point out the defects, mistakes, omissions or additions, etc., if any, to be made in the translation and if such mistakes are pointed out, the trial court shall consider the same and correct the translation of the deposition of the witnesses and the documents, which are translated into English from Tamil. However, the trial shall go on till the recording of the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Prosecution and the accused may filed necessary memo pointing out the errors and mistakes, if any, in the translation wherever it is required, on or before the completion of the recording of the evidence of 41 witnesses sought to be recalled.