MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALPUR BENCH
Rakesh Saksena, S.C.Sinho, JJ.
Mohd.Aslam and Anr. - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. - Respondent
M.Cr.C. No. 10254-2008
Decided On : 30-04-2010
Section 482 - Language of Record and Judgment - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 265, Section 277, Section 354, Madhya Pradesh Official Language Act, 1957 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 265, Section 277, and Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as the Madhya Pradesh Official Language Act, 1957, in relation to the language of record, evidence, and judgment in criminal proceedings. The court emphasized that while the official language for official purposes of the State of Madhya Pradesh is Hindi, it does not restrict or obligate the parties to submit documents or charge sheets only in the language of the Court. The court also highlighted the provisions regarding the recording of evidence in a language other than the language of the Court and the preparation of true translations. The judgment emphasized that the language should not hinder the dispensation of justice and that the accused, represented by counsel well-versed in English, would not be prejudiced by the charge sheet being in English.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants filed a petition challenging the order dismissing their application for Hindi translation of documents filed in English along with the charge sheet. The charge sheet was filed by CBI, ACB, Bhopal under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court committed no error in rejecting the application for supply of Hindi translation of the documents filed with the charge sheet in English.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicants were entitled to have Hindi translation of the documents filed by the prosecution in English, considering their language preference and the official language of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the official language for official purposes of the State of Madhya Pradesh is Hindi, but it does not restrict or obligate the parties to submit documents or charge sheets only in the language of the Court. The court also highlighted the provisions regarding the recording of evidence in a language other than the language of the Court and the preparation of true translations. The judgment emphasized that the language should not hinder the dispensation of justice and that the accused, represented by counsel well-versed in English, would not be prejudiced by the charge sheet being in English.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
Rakesh Saksena, J.
1. Applicants have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 24.9.2008 passed by Special Judge for CBI cases, Bhopal in Special Case No. 11/2008 dismissing the application filed by them under Section 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requesting that prosecution be directed to furnish Hindi translation of the documents filed by it in English along with the charge sheet filed against them.
2. CBI, ACB, Bhopal filed the charge sheet against the applicants under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This charge sheet was in English language. First Information Report, statements of witnesses and most of the documents filed along with the charge sheet were in English. Applicants filed application under Section 265 Code of Criminal Procedure stating that they did not have adequate knowledge of English language, therefore, they were incapable to defend themselves because the documents filed along with the charge sheet against them were in English language. According to them, their language was Hindi and since official language of the Court was also Hindi, they were entitled to have Hindi translation of the documents filed by the prosecution in the case, therefore, they prayed that prosecution be directed to supply the Hindi translation of the documents which were in English language.
3. It is apposite to quote Section 265(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as under:
265. Language of record and judgment.- (1) Every such record and judgment shall be written in the language of the Court.
4. Since Section 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to the provisions comprised in Chapter XXI-Summary Trials under Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the provisions of Section 265 are not applicable to cases triable as warrant-cases and sessions trials. The case in hand was triable as warrant-case by Special Judge C.B.I.
5. In respect of language of record and the evidence pertaining to warrant-cases and the trials before Court of Sessions, Section 277 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:
277. Language of record of evidence.- In every case where evidence is taken down under Section 275 or Section 276,
(a) if the witness gives evidence in the language of the Court, it shall be taken down in that language;
(b) if he gives evidence in any other language, it may, if practicable, be taken down in that language, and if it is not practicable to do so, a true translation of the evidence in the language of the Court shall be prepared as the examination of the witness proceeds, signed by the Magistrate or presiding Judge, and shall form part of the record;
(c) where under Clause (b) evidence is taken down in a language other than the language of the Court, a true translation thereof in the language of the Court shall be prepared as soon as practicable, signed by the Magistrate or presiding Judge, and shall form part of the record:
Provided that when under Clause (b) evidence is taken down in English and a translation thereof in the language of the Court is not required by any of the parties, the Court may dispense with such translation.
6. From bare perusal of above provision, it is apparent that it requires the Court to record evidence in the language of the witness and if the witness gives evidence in any other language, it may, if practicable, be taken down in that language, and if it is not practicable to do so, a true translation of the evidence in the language of the Court shall be prepared. It has been further provided that if the evidence is taken down in English and the translation thereof in the language of the Court is not required by any of the parties, the Court may dispense with such translation.
7. As far as the language and contents of judgment are concerned, Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:
354. Language
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.