ORDER: The case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner herein is an Ex.M.L.A. of the Pondicherry Assembly according to him, the respondent has registered a case culminating in C.C.No.2 of 1999 pending on the file of the Special Judge for C.B.I. cases, Pondicherry, alleging that he had committed an offence punishable under Sec.8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sec.116, I.P.C. and Sec.34, I.P.C. The petitioner had appeared before the trial court and the trial court, furnished copies of the documents to him. According to him, his mother-tongue is Tamil and he has studied only upto IX standard. Therefore, he seeks that copies of documents required to be furnished to him under Sec.207, Crl.P.C. should be in Tamil only. Some of the documents are in English. He does not know English language and therefore he had preferred Cr.M.P.No.780 of 1999 on the file of the Special Judge seeking an order to furnish him with translated copies of documents.

2. The learned Special Judge enquired into the matter and came to the conclusion that Sec.207 Crl.P.C. provides for furnishing copies alone and not for furnishing translated copies, and accordingly dismissed that petition. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Special Judge, the petitioner has preferred this Crl.O.P. questioning the correctness of the orders.

3. Heard both the sides. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a semi-literate, who had studied upto IX Standard in Tamil Medium, that his vernacular is Tamil, and therefore, he is not in a position to understand the contents of the copies of the documents in English.

4. Careful perusal of the order passed by the learned Special Judge would go to show that of the copies furnished to the petitioner, the final report is in Tamil, most of the documents are in Tamil, and the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer of the Pondicherry Police are also in Tamil, but the statements recorded by the C.B.I. Officers alone are in English. It has also been observed by the learned Special Judge that the statements recorded by the C.B.I. Officers which are in English are not different from the statements given by the witnesses in Tamil to the Investigating Officer of the Pondicherry Police.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strongly relied upon the decision rendered by my learned brother A.Raman, J. in Crl.O.P. Nos.14620 and 14621 and 16888 of 1997. For the sake of convenience, the above Crl.O.Ps. can be referred to as Sasikala case. My learned brother A.Raman, J. has considered the question in extenso and came to the conclusion that the language of the subordinate criminal court is in Tamil and the proceedings have to be held only in Tamil. My learned brother A.Raman, J. has further observed that Sec.207, Crl.P.C. does not bar the issuance of copies in Tamil.

6. The learned counsel also referred to a decision reported in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 911, which is a case concerning a detenu who was kept in confinement under Sec.3(1)(a)(ii) of the Preventive Detention Act.

7.Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though the court language may be in Tamil, the provision of Sec.207, Crl.P.C. only contemplates furnishing copies of documents and it does not give room for furnishing translated copies of documents, because translated copies cannot be considered as copies of the original documents. In support of his contention, the learned Public Prosecutor cited two decisions reported in Arputharaj v. State, (1998)1 C.T.C. 409 and another judgment rendered by my learned brother A.Ramamurthi, J. in Crl.O.P.Nos.4711 to 4714 of 1999. In Arputharaj’s case, under identical circumstance, Sidickk, J. has held as under:

"3.....Sec.207 of Crl.P.C. states that the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused free of costs, a copy of the police report, the First Information Report, Statements recorded under Sec.161((3) of Cr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document