Procedural laws are designed to sub-serve the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by mere technicalities.

These revisions are interrelated as directed against the order-dated 06.12.2007 passed by Eleventh Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T. No. 292/ 2007, whereby while dismissing the petitioners' application, under Sections 227 and 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code), the learned trial Judge had charged them with the offences under Sections 120-B, 302 read with 149 and 201 of the IPC.

2. In the first revision, registered as Cri. Revision No.36/2008, legality and propriety of the part of the impugned order concerning framing of charges have been called in question whereas the Second Revision, numbered as Cri. Revision No.37/2008, is directed against the other part of the order whereby the application, under Sections 227 and 395 of the Code, was rejected.

3. The petitioners and co-accused P. Shaija, the wife of Gopal Rao (since deceased), stand prosecuted for the offences of murder of Gopal Rao in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy and also in furtherance of their common object and for causing disappearance of evidence of murder. All the accused/petitioners are the residents of various places falling in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

4. In the application, alternative prayers were made for discharging the petitioners or to refer the matter to this Court for decision on the validity of the investigation. According to the petitioners, no charge could be framed against them on the basis of the evidence and materials collected during investigation that was carried out in a language not understood by them. However, observing that necessary assistance of interpreters was taken by the Investigating Officer and, admittedly, three of the accused namely Satya Narayan, Suresh Prakash Reddy and P. Shaija were conversant with Hindi language, the learned trial Judge proceeded to reject the alternative prayers. Immediately thereafter, he framed the charges and after reading over and explaining the same to the petitioners in presence of their counsel, also recorded the fact in the order-sheet that they have pleaded not guilty.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while inviting attention to the fact that in all the four sheets containing the charges, the space provided for plea of the petitioners was left blank, has strenuously contended that the charges were not sustainable in law for want of compliance of the mandatory provision of sub-section (2) of Section 228 of the Code. However, a bare perusal of the record would reveal that the learned trial Judge has considered this aspect of the matter in the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Banwari v. State of U.P. AIR 1962 SC 1198 : (1962 (2) Cri LJ 278) wherein omission to read over and explain charges to the accused, in absence of proof of any prejudice was held to be not sufficient to vitiate the trial. Reference was also made to the decisions of this Court in State v. Tarachand Anand, AIR 1957 MP 219) : (1957 Cri LJ 1407) and Hamerkunwarbai v. State of M.P. 1957 Cri.L.J. 672, though related to summon cases, to the effect that it is open to an accused to take the plea of guilty or not guilty or to make necessary answers to the questions raised by the Court through his counsel. There is yet another aspect of the matter. In a case where language of the Court is not understood by the accused and he is not represented by a pleader, conversant with the language, it is the evidence only that has to be interpreted to the accused in the view of the statutory mandate under Section 279(1) of the Code.

6. It is well settled that procedural laws are designed to sub-serve the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by mere technicalities (Willie (William) Slaney v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 116 : (1956 Cri LJ 291) relied on). Further, the fact that the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 have signed the corresponding sheet of charge in English language is sufficient to indicate that they, not being illiterate or uneducated, are intelligent enough to