Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :DEV KANT TRIVEDI
SAJAL SURESHKUMAR JAIN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION 45 of 2005
Decided On : 02/16/2005
Documents furnished with charge-sheet - Supply of certified copies in the language known to accused - Scope of.
Head Note :
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) - Sections 397/401, 154, 157, 173, 174, 207, 272, 273, 277 & 279 - [Indian] Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) - Sections 306, 376(2)(g) & 120(B) - Charge-sheet - Documents furnished with - Supply of certified copies in English or Hindi Language - Rejection of application for - Propriety of - There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to supply material in the language known to accused person like English and Hindi as alleged in the case - Admittedly in the State of Gujarat the investigation is being carried out in Gujarati language which is official language of Gujarat - Along with the charge-sheet the material is already furnished to petitioner accused long back - The petitioner could have got these documents translated into the language known to him as the petitioner is being represented through the lawyer - Now the matter has reached to the stage of trial - He cannot be held to have any right to get those copies in the language known to him and Courts below were right in rejecting the application made by petitioner - Accordingly Court refused any interference in the impugned order.
Held :
It is clear that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to supply material in the language known to the accused persons. Admittedly the investigation is being carried out by officers in Gujarati language and accordingly the statements of the witnesses and other documents are prepared in Gujarati language. The official language of the State is Gujarati language and Gujarati language is the language accepted by the investigating agency for the investigation of any complaint. Alongwith the charge-sheet the material is already furnished to the petitioner accused long back and the petitioner could have got it those documents translated into the language known to him, as the petitioner is being represented through the lawyer. Now the matter has reached at the stage of trial and the case is fixed before the Presiding Judge on 21.02.2005. In the documents forming part of the charge-sheet, some of the documents are in Gujarati, namely, the statements of the witnesses. The petitioner is already represented by engaging Advocate and the petitioner could have got translated these documents as the petitioner has got sufficient time. In view of the provisions in the CrPC as well as in the judgments on the point, the petitioner has no right to get those copies translated in the language known to him and the Court was right in rejecting the application made by the petitioner, and further the petitioner could have got those documents translated by his own or the Advocate engaged by him was also required to get those documents translated into the language known to the petitioner as the petitioner has already engaged a lawyer of his choice. Even as per the Scheme of the CrPC, for the accused who is not in a position to engage an Advocate of his choice the Court provides legal aid to him and even if the accused is not knowing the language of the Court, there is also a provision in the Code which will safe-guard the interest of the accused during trial. Accordingly this Court is of the view that there is no interference is required in the order under challenge while exercising Court revisional jurisdiction. [Para 11]
Law Laid Down :
There is no requirement of law to supply certified copies of document furnished with charge-sheet in the language known to accused.
Cases Law Analysis :
Ashokkumar Prabhudas Modi vs. State of Gujarat, 2001 (3) GLH 796. [Para 8]-Relied on
In re : Rangaswami, AIR 1957 Mad 508;; Harmindersingh Pritamsingh Virdi vs. State of Maharashtra, 1991 CrLJ 241.-Distinguished
Appearance :
Mr. N.D. Nanavati, Senior Advocate, with Mr. S.N. Sinha, for Petitioner No. 1.
Mr. Arun D. Oza, P.P. with Mr. V.M. Pancholi, Addl. P.P. for Respondent No. 1.
Cases Referred :
Kottaya vs. Emperor, 1947 Privy Council 67;; Gurbachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 623;; Pulukuri Kotayya vs. Emperor, ILR (1948) Mad 1 = AIR 1947 PC 67;; Baliram vs. Emperor, ILR (1945) Nag 151 = AIR 1945 Nag 1;; Emperor vs. Bansidhar, ILR 58 ALL 458 = AIR 1931 ALL 262;; Willie (William) Slaney vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1955 (2) SCR 1140 = AIR 1956 SC 116;; Purshottam Jethanand vs. State of Kutch, AIR 1954 SC 700;; State vs. J.D. Daroga, AIR 1959 Bom 314.
Decided in Favour of :
Non-petitioner-State
Application Rejected
( 1 ) THE petitioner accused has moved this court and filed Revision Application, as he was one of the accused involved in an offence registered vide C. R. No. I-23/04 at naranpura Police Station for the offences under Section 306 etc. of the IPC. It is also the case of the petitioner that he was also arrested by the police in respect of the offence registered vide C. R. No. I-2/04 at sahibaug Police Station for the offences under Sections 376 (2) (g) and 120 (B) of the IPC. The accused was arrested by the police on 15. 1. 2004.
( 2 ) WHILE filing this Revision Application, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Ahmedabad below application Exh. 4 in Sessions Case No. 239/04 by which the application submitted by the petitioner accused for supply of certified copy of the documents, which had been furnished alongwith the charge-sheet to the applicant, in english or Hindi language at the earliest to enable the petitioner accused to defend his case properly, was rejected. The application was submitted by the prisoner through advocate on 17. 1. 2005 and the learned Presiding judge has rejected the said application on the very day. While filing this Revision Application, the petitioner has also annexed the application submitted by the applicant vide Exh. 4 and the order passed thereon by the learned Presiding Judge dated 17. 1. 2005.
( 3 ) MR. NANAVATI, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner accused has during hearing taken me through the petition and the application with the order under challenge passed by the learned trial Judge. Mr. Nanavati has in his contention contended before me that looking to the order passed by the learned Presiding judge on an application filed by the petitioner for supply of documents in English or in Hindi language, which was rejected on the very day on 17. 1. 2005, has resulted into miscarriage of justice and according to him that the ground for rejection made by the learned trial judge suggest that the applicant is responsible while submitting such application by adopting delay tactic in delaying the trial. In fact, after his arrest, he has not made any application for bail either to the trial court or to this court and the request was made for supply of copies of the material found from the charge sheet in Hindi or English language and accordingly to put his defence and instruct his advocate such request was made for which any delay in trial can not be attributed to the applicant. Mr. Nanavati has contended that the presiding Judge ought to have considered the application for supply of documents in the language known to the petitioner as the documents which were forwarded were in gujarati language, which is not the language known by the petitioner and unless and until the documents, which were furnished to him in the language known to him, it would not be possible for the applicant to take proper defence or to instruct his lawyer during trial and the learned judge ought to have granted the application by directing the investigating agency to furnish the documents either in Hindi language or English language, which language is known by the petitioner.
( 4 ) MR. NANAVATI has also demonstrated before me that it is not for the first time the petitioner has applied for such request before the learned Presiding Judge. As found from the application that even earlier when the charge sheet was submitted by the police and when the materials were received alongwith the charge sheet, the applicant has requested by making an application to the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 9, ahmedabad on 3. 5. 2004 in Criminal Case No. 230/04 by highlighting that as the applicant accused is not knowing gujarati language and he is known English and Hindi language and the material which has been furnished alongwith the charge sheet is in Gujarati language, a request was made that the prosecution be directed to furnis
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
