The lack of specific legal provision requiring translation of Hindi documents into English for death reference cases influenced the court's decision to expedite the listing of cases and reduce delay.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State in respect of LA. No. 2110 of 2007 through which the appellant of Cr. Appeal No. 1354 of 2007 has prayed for fixing an early date of hearing for these appeals and connected Death Reference No. 12 of 2007.

2. For the purpose of expediting the hearing, on behalf of appellants it was offered that translation of necessary paper books may be allowed to be done out-side the court at the cost of the appellants and after the translation is compared by the concerned department of the court, paper book may be prepared expeditiously and the matter may be heard expeditiously.

3. We made query from the office of the court on 23.1.2008 as to within what time death reference No. 12 of 2007 alongwith connected Cr. Appeals can be ready for hearing. According to the office, in ordinary course on account of pendency of several death reference cases for hearing, the translation work and typing will take considerable time and these cases can be ready for hearing only by the end of September, 2009. However, the office has pointed out that if precedence is given by a judicial order then paper book of these appeals and death reference can be made ready by end of April, 2009.

4. Then we made queries from the office on 30.1.2008 regarding exact position in law. In view of several relevant High Court Rules pointed out on 30.1.2008, the office has given notes that according to Translation Department of this court there is no clear provision for translation of entire Hindi Papers of death referece cases in English. Such practice is continuing long. Standing Order No. 4 of 1943 was referred to by the office to point out that printing of paper books in death reference cases was necessary. In respect of query as to whether translation work can be got done from any agency outside the court, the office has merely pointed out that so far it has never been done in the past.

5. This court is aware of the past practice. In the long past printed paper books were required in all Criminal Appeals including Death Reference. In order to expedite the hearing of criminal appeals and avoid delay taking place on account of printing of paper books, this court introduced the practice of preparation of paper books of criminal appeals on the basis of Xerox copies of all the documents including depositions. At times when the court finds the xerox copies of deposition illegible, special orders are passed for their typing. But the practice of translation of all Hindi vernacular documents and typing of all documents for preparation of paper books in death reference cases have continued for long time. It appears that on account of limited hands available with the translation department and rising numbers of death reference cases a large number of death reference cases have accumulated and are pending hearing only because translation work cannot be completed in all those death reference cases.

6. We have given anxious consideration to the relevant rules in the Patna High Court Rules as well as to the office note and they show that there is no specific legal provision requiring translation of all Hindi vernacular documents into English for preparation of paper books in a death reference case. As it is, the practice of printing of paper books has been discontinued and only typed paper books are prepared. The report of the Translation Department dated 28.1.2008 shows that recently flow of death reference cases has increased 17 death reference cases of 2007 and four death reference cases of 2008 were received in the translation department and out of them only 3 death reference cases bearing nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 2007 have been returned to the criminal department after completing translation work.

7. We do not find any justification to give priority to one death reference case over another death reference in the matter of hearing. However, we agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that all necessa