The main legal point established is that the petitioner was entitled to English translations of the documents as per the High Court Rules and constitutional provision, and the previous judgment's findings were overruled as they violated the rules and constitutional provision.

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.

This writ petition was admitted and was directed to be listed before the Full bench while issuing notice by order dated 16.04.1990, probably on the basis of the prayer sought for in the writ petition seeking a declaration that the judgment reported in 1988 KLJ 90 (Inderjeet Gupta v. State of J&K) is bad in law and directions for directing the respondents to make immediate arrangements for the translating facility with respondent no. 2 with a further direction to respondent no. 2 to take back the application of the petitioner returned on 06.10.1989 and supply the English translation copies of the Urdu documents as prayed for by the petitioner, and not to list for hearing the Criminal Reference No. 53 of 1987 till the request for English translation of the Urdu documents is supplied to the petitioner.

2. After the said direction the writ petition was listed before the Full Bench on 10.11.2000 which was adjourned to 04.12.2000 and thereafter the matter was listed for hearing on 14.03.2016

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and others by a private individual before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court at Kathua in Criminal Case File No. 292 of 1984 for offences under Sections 147, 427, 454, 34, 35 RPC. The said private complaint filed in July, 1984 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kathua, was sent for inquiry/investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C to Police Station Kathua and after inquiry, a report was submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in January 1985, who took cognizance of the complaint and charge was framed under Sections 448, 427, 147 RPC and issued process to the accused persons and they furnished the requisite bail bonds/security. On 09.04.1987 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order closing the prosecution evidence. Against the said order closing the prosecution evidence, the complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 5/1987 before the learned Sessions Judge at Kathua who made reference order on 31.08.1987 to this Court pursuant to which the record of Criminal Revision along with the record of criminal case File No. 292/1984 was received by the Registry of this Court, which was registered as Criminal Reference No. 53 of 1987 and notice was issued to the accused persons including the petitioner.

4. The petitioner appeared through his counsel in the Criminal Reference case and his counsel filed an application before respondent no. 2 on 29.09.1989, seeking supply of English translation copies of the statements of all the witnesses as also of all the orders recorded in Urdu (Persion Script) by the trial Court in the above case on payment of usual translation charges. The said application was filed under Rule 148 of the J&K High Court Rules, 1975, stating that if the counsel arguing a case is not well versed with Urdu, he can apply for translation copies. The said application dated 29.09.1989 was returned by the 2nd respondent on 06.10.1989 by stating as follows:-

“a. REGISTRY'S DESK-NOTEDT. OCTOBER 6, 1989 ON HEREIN-PETNR'S APPLN DT. SEPT. 29, 1989.

“In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7 of 1987 entitled Inderjit Gupta v. State reported as 1988 KLJ at page 90. The (sic.) applicant is not entitled to translated copy. Hence submitted for orders.

Sd/- 6.10.89

(Himmat Singh)

Copyist”.

b. REGISTRY'S SUPERVISOTY REMARKS/ORDER DT. OCT. 6, 1989 IBID

“After perusing the report of office, the application be returned to the petitioner.”

Sd/- 6.10.89

Deputy Registrar

High Court of J&K,

Jammu.”

5. Since the Division Bench judgment is relied on by the 2nd respondent, this writ petition is filed seeking declaration to declare the said judgment as bad in law with consequential reliefs.

6. The principal contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this writ petition is that Rule 148 of the J&K High Court Rule, 1975 was not properly appreciated by the