Translated copies and original copies cannot be held equivalent.

This is an application filed by the petitioner/accused in P.R.C.No.1 of 1994 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.VII at Madurai and this application is filed under Sec.482 of Crl.P.C, to direct the respondent police to furnish Tamil translation copies of final report and the statement of the doctors recorded under Sec.161 of Crl.P.C, Use accident report and the wound certificate of Palaniappan.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4 in P.R.C.No.1 of 1994 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.VII at Madurai for the offences under Secs.147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 307 of I.P.C. The only ground that is raged in the affidavit of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an illiterate and he could not read and write English, and because of his illiteracy he was unable to read and understand the gist of the changes against him and also he was not able to understand the statements of the doctors. Nowhere in the affidavit it is stated by the petitioner that his advocate was not conversant with English, and his advocate was not able to understand the gist of the charges and the statements of the doctors which are in English. The petitioner has got legal advice and guidance to translate such of those documents, which are in English into Tamil, and notwithstanding the same he has filed this application seeking a direction to the respondent police to furnish Tamil translation of the copies of charge sheet, statements of the doctors, accident Register and wound certificate, and such a direction cannot be granted inasmuch as there is no averment in the affidavit of the petition stating that his advocate could not understand English and could not translate the documents which are in English into Tamil.

3. Even brushing aside this point viz., the understanding of English by the lawyer, the law does not require to provide the petitioner/A-4 to furnish him with the Tamil translation copies of these documents. The reason is that 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 Crl.P.C. of all the prosecution witnesses who, the prosecution proposed to examine them, the confession statements recorded under Sec.164 of Crl.P.C. and any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the Police report under Sec.l73(5) of Crl.P.C. Nowhere in Sec.207 of Crl.P.C. it has been stated that the Magistrate is bound or the police is bound to furnish Tamil translation copies of such of those documents which are in English.

4. Even ignoring the statutory provision under Sec.207 of Crl.P.C. let us consider as to whether there is any judicial precedent on this point. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice the decision of a single Judge of Bombay High Court reported in Harmindersingh Pritamsingh Virdi v. State of Maharashtra, 1991 Crl.L.J. 241, in support of his contention that the accused on his request must be furnished with English translation of investigation papers. That was a case where there was a notification issued by the Government of Maharastra on 7. 1969 by stating that the Government of Maharashtra with effect from 1st May, 1966, determines Marathi to be the language of all criminal courts in the State other than the High Court and criminal courts in Greater Bombay. Further more it is stated in para one of the said decision that the petitioner/accused as well as their advocates were not familiar with the Marathi language, and so they applied to the Sessions Court for directions that the translation of the police statements should be furnished to them in English. Such was not a case before us where it is not statea that the advocate was not familiar with English language so as to demand the translation of copies of those documents which are in English. In other words the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the pet