Back
2003 Supreme(Mad) 949
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ
Ramamoorthy & Others - Appellant
Versus
State, by The Superintendent of Police - Respondents
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITIONS No.8094 TO 8104 OF 2003
Decided On : 04 July 2003
Accused's genuine inability to understand a language and their entitlement to translated copies under the law.
Headnote:
Language Translation - Criminal Procedure - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 13(2), 13(1)(d) - Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code
Fact of the Case:
The accused, public servants of United India Insurance Corporation, sought translated copies of documents and statements in Tamil, claiming inability to understand English. The prosecution opposed, alleging delay tactics.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused were not genuinely unable to understand English, as they had studied it in school and dealt with English correspondence in their official capacity. The court also held that the accused, defended by English-speaking lawyers, were not entitled to translated copies.
Issues: The issues revolved around the accused's genuine inability to understand English and the legal entitlement to translated copies under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the factual finding that the accused were not genuinely unable to understand English and the legal interpretation that they were not entitled to translated copies under the Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal original petitions, holding that the accused were not entitled to translated copies of the documents and statements.
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners in all the above criminal original petitions are the accused in C.C.Nos.74 of 2001 and 75 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, which are registered by the respondent on the charges of commission of offences by each of the petitioners punishable under Sections 120-B r/w.s420,467,467 r/w.471,468,468 r/w.471 and Section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since their applications praying to direct the respondent Police to furnish the copies of statements and documents relied on by the prosecution translated to Tamil were dismissed by the Court of Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, they all have come forward to file the above criminal original petitions against the orders of the said Court dated 25.2.2003 made in Crl.M.P.Nos.11 to 21 of 2003 praying to set aside the order passed by the trial Court and direct the learned Judge of the trial Court to furnish the copies of the statements and documents translated to Tamil.
2. Regarding the status of the petitioners, they have all been employed in different capacities in the Personnel and Marketing Departments of the United India Insurance Corporation Limited in their Regional Office at Chennai.
3. Regarding their knowledge pertaining to the language, they would generally allege that they have studied up to the School final and they are conversant only with Tamil language and since they are not conversant with the English language, they have filed the petitions before the trial Court seeking a direction to the respondent to furnish them the copies of the documents and the 161 Cr.P.C. statements provided to them in Tamil version since they are unable to read, write and understand the documents and the statements in English and unable to effectively instruct their counsel, lest, serious prejudice would be caused to them in defending their case in the trial.
4. On the contrary, on the part of the respondent, they would submit that on some reason or other, the petitioners are in the habit of delaying the process of trial and this is nothing short of one such tactic adopted by the petitioners; that since being public servants, they can very well read and write English and further more, since all the accused have engaged their Lawyers, who are very conversant with the English language, it is neither necessary to supply the copies of the Tamil version of the documents to the accused nor is it incumbent on the part of the Court to indulge in such exercise of furnishing the translated version of the copies of the documents in Tamil particularly in view of the construction of Section 207 Cr.P.C., which does not at all warrant such supply of the translated version of the copies of the documents.
5. Regarding the subject in hand, two aspects have to be intensively considered, the first one is factual and the other legal. So far as the factual aspect of the subject is concerned, at the outset, it has to be assessed that for seeking such facility of supply of the translated version of the copies of documents in Tamil, whether the petitioners have factually established that they are bereft of the knowledge to read or understand the English version of the documents and the statements so as to become entitled to take up the plea that they must be supplied with the Tamil version of the copies of the documents and statements.
6. Secondly, whether there is any legal sanction in cases of such nature wherein the accused are not fettered nor incapacitated to seek recourse to have such assistance or get the translated version of the copies of the documents and statements as it is the case in preventive detention wherein the accused are in confinement, so as to demand such facilities and whether on account of the non-supply of the translated version of the documents and statements in the case in hand, any serious prejudice would be caused to the accused?
7. During arguments, the learned cou
