The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order

dated 4-06-2022, by which, the Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Bengaluru in Special C.C.No.138 of 2015

rejects a memo filed by the petitioner seeking assistance of a

translator to the questions posed for recording statement of the

petitioner under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Sri Mohamed Nasiruddin, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government

Pleader for the respondent.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition as

borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

3

The petitioner is the accused of a complaint being registered

on 11-12-2014 alleging that on 06-12-2014 when the mother of the

victim was not in the house, the petitioner goes into the house on

the ground that he would teach her Quran and sends her sister

Asiya to bring chocolate from a shop outside the house. When Asiya

went out to bring chocolate, it is alleged that the petitioner had

behaved with the victim in a manner that would become punishable

under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 (8POCSO Act9 for short). The issue is not with regard to

gravity of the offence in the case at hand, as the petitioner is

charged of offences punishable under Sections 354, 506 of the IPC

and Sections 3(b) r/w 4, 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. After

registration of the complaint, the Police filed a charge sheet and the

concerned Court has framed charges against the petitioner. The

said proceedings are at the stage of recording of statement of the

petitioner under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. At that stage, the

counsel for the petitioner files a memo before the concerned Court

seeking assistance of a translator to translate questions in a

language known to the accused, as the accused is said to be from

Bihar and is not aware of the local language Kannada or English and

4

therefore, he needs a translator at an important stage in the trial

i.e., recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned

Sessions Judge, by his order dated 04-06-2022, declined to accept

the memo of the petitioner for grant of assistance of a translator

while recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. This is what

drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

contend with vehemence that the stage of recording statement

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is very important in a trial against an

accused and fair trial requires that the accused must be questioned

in a language that he understands or must be given a translator to

translate the questions put across in English or Kannada in a

language known to the accused. He would submit that the learned

Sessions Judge was clearly in error in not acceding to the said

request.

5. The learned High Court Government Pleader would

however contend that the application filed by the petitioner was

only a ruse to drag the proceedings, as at no point in time he has

ever mentioned that he is not aware of Kannada language or he

5

does not understand the said language and therefore, seeks

dismissal of the present petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material

on record.

7. In the light of the afore-quoted facts, the only issue that

needs a decision is, whether the petitioner who claims to be

ignorant of the language 3 either English or Kannada 3 is entitled to

get a translator to translate the questions posed by the Court to a

language known to him. Since the issue springs from an order

passed by the concerned Court on 4-06-2022, the same is

extracted herein for the purpose of ready reference:

<Case called. Accused absent. EP filed. Grounds not

sufficient to allow the same. Hence, EP rejected. Issue NBW to

accused. Call on for 313 Statement by 06.06.2022.=

The learned Sessions Judge, in his order dated 01.06.2022, records

that the c