ORDER :

This petition is filed for setting aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.314 of 2022 in S.C.No.38 of 2019 dated 07.11.2022 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Hosur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is one of the accused in S.C.No.38 of 2019. Petitioner was furnished copies of the documents under section 207 Cr.P.C in Tamil. Petitioner could not read or write Tamil language because he is not conversant with Tamil language. Unmindful of the Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, copies of the documents have been furnished to him mechanically in a language, which is foreign to him. Therefore, he filed a petition for supplying copies of the documents in Telugu language. That petition was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge in Crl.M.P.No.314 of 2021. Challenging the dismissal order, he filed this Criminal Original Petition. He further submitted that unless petitioner knows what are the allegations made in the complaint and the final report against him, what are the statements given by the witnesses against him, in the language known to him i.e., Telugu language, it is not possible for petitioner to understand the case against him and give suitable instructions to his Advocate to defend him. Merely because his Advocate knows Tamil and his Advocate conducts the case on his behalf, it is not a ground for rejecting his genuine claim of seeking the documents in Telugu language. Ever since from the date of arrest, accused is entitled to know the reason for arrest in the language known to him and every other incriminating circumstances available against him. If the copies of the documents relied by the prosecution are not given in Telugu language to him, he could not be in a position to make up a proper defence and that would certainly deprive him of his life and personal liberty. It is not permissible under the law. Thus, dismissal of Crl.M.P.No.314 of 2022 is not correct and thus, he prayed for setting aside the order and for a direction to supply copies of the documents relied by the prosecution in Telugu language. In support of his submission, he pressed into service following judgments/orders:-

(i) AIR 1962 SC 911 (Harikisan ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and others) wherein it is observed as follows:-

“5. His argument further was that "communication" of the grounds was not equivalent to serving the-grounds in English upon a person who was not conversant with the English language, and that oral translation by the police officer, said to have been made to the detenue, was not sufficient compliance with the requirements of the constitutional provisions, which, must be fully satisfied in order that the detenue may be in a position to make an effective representation against the order of detention. He also contended that we do not know in what terms the police officer translated the lengthy document or whether his translation was correct. .....

6. ........

7. ........The learned Attorney-General has tried to answer this contention in several ways. He has first contended that when the Constitution speaks of communicating the grounds of detention to the detenue, it means communication in the official language, which continues to be English; secondly, the communication need not be in writing and the translation, and explanation in Hindi offered by the Inspector of Police, while serving the order of detention and the grounds, would be enough compliance with the requirements of the law and the Constitution; and thirdly, that it was not necessary in the circumstances of the case to supply the grounds in Hindi. In our opinion, this was not sufficient compliance in this case with the requirements of the Constitution, as laid down in Clause (5) of Article 22. To a person, who is not conversant with the English language, service of the order and the grounds of detention in English, with their oral translation or explanation by the police officer serving them does not fulfil the requi