High Court of Gujarat
Sajal Sureshkumar Jain Vs State of Gujarat
Criminal Revision Application No. 45 of 2005. Date :- 16/02/2005
- TRIVEDI, J
1.The petitioner accused has moved this court and filed Revision Application, as he was one of the accused involved in an offence registered vide C.R.No.I-23/04 at Naranpura Police Station for the offences under Section 306, etc. of the IPC. It is also the case of the petitioner that he was also arrested by the police in respect of the offence registered vide C.R.No.I-2/04 at Sahibaug Police Station for the offences under Sections 376(2)(g) and 120(B) of the IPC. The accused was arrested by the police on 15.1.2004.
2.While filing this Revision Application, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Ahmedabad below application Exh.4 in Sessions Case No.239/04 by : which the application submitted by the petitioner accused for supply of certified copy of the documents, which had been furnished alongwith the charge-sheet to the applicant, in English or Hindi language at the earliest to enable the petitioner accused to defend his case properly, was rejected. The application was submitted by the prisoner through advocate on 17.1.2005 and the learned Presiding Judge has rejected the said application on the very day. While filing this Revision Application, the petitioner has also annexed the application submitted by the applicant vide Exh.4 and the order passed thereon by the learned: Presiding Judge dated 17.1.2005.
3.Mr.Nanavati, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner-accused has during hearing taken me through the petition and the application with the order under challenge passed by the learned trial Judge. Mr. Nanavati has in his contention contended before me that looking to the order passed by the learned Presiding Judge on an application filed by the petitioner for supply of documents in English or in Hindi language, which was rejected on the very day on 17.1.2005, has resulted into miscarriage of justice and according to him that the ground for rejection made by the learned trial Judge suggest that the applicant is responsible while submitting such application by adopting delay tactic in delaying the trial. In fact, after his arrest, he has not made any application for bail either to the Trial Court or to this Court and the request was made for supply of copies of the material found from the charge-sheet in Hindi or English language and accordingly to put his defence and instruct his advocate such request was made for which any delay in trial cannot be attributed to the applicant. Mr. Nanavati has contended that the Presiding Judge ought to have considered the application for supply of documents in the language known to the petitioner as the documents which were forwarded were in Gujarati language, which is not the language known by the petitioner and unless and until the documents, which were furnished to him in the language known to him, it would not be possible for the applicant to take proper defence or to instruct his lawyer during trial and the learned Judge ought to have granted the application by directing the investigating agency to furnish the documents either in Hindi language or English language, which language is known by the petitioner.
4.Mr.Nanavati has also demonstrated before me that it is not for the first time the petitioner has applied for such request before the learned Presiding Judge. As found from the application that even earlier when the charge-sheet was submitted by the police and when the materials were received alongwith the charge-sheet, the applicant has requested by making an application to the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.9, Ahmedabad on 3.5.2004 in Criminal Case No.230/04 by highlighting that as the applicant accused is not knowing Gujarati languages and he is known English and Hindi language and the material which has been furnished alongwith the charge-sheet is in Gujarati language, a request was made that the prosecution be directed to furnish the said material in language known to the petitioner and the petitioner has also shown readiness to pay the costs for the same. In spite of submitting such application before the learned Magistrate, though the Magistrate has kept the said application for hearing by issuing notice to the A.P.P., the said application is not heard and kept pending and in the application, which the petitioner has submitted before the learned Presiding Judge, the said fact is also mentioned in the application Exh.4 and when such application was not decided by the learned Magistrate, the present application is filed by the petitioner for requesting for supply of said material in the language known to the petitioner and this aspect has not been considered by the learned Judge while deciding the application. Mr. Nanavati has also produced the xerox certified copy of the said application, which was submitted by the petitioner before the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 3.5.2004 for my perusal.
5.Mr.Nanavati has also placed in service with regard to the provisions of the Cr.P.C. while referring to Chapter XII which deals with the procedure to be followed by the police on information received by the police and their power to investigate. As per Section 154 it deals with regard to the information in cognizable cases. On any information received by the police, the police has to investigate such cognizable case and the procedure is prescribed in Section 157 for such investigation by the police. Section 173 is pertaining to procedure for which the police has to submit report on completion of the investigation. Section 173 reads as under:-
“173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.- (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.
(2)(i) As. soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating-
(a) the names of the parties;
(b) the nature of the information;
(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;
(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170.
(ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.
xxx xxx xxx
(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, whereupon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of subsections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2).”
A.Section 207 reads as under:-
“207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents. In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of costs, a copy of each of the following:-
(i) the police report;
(ii) the first information report recorded under Section 154;
(iii) the statements recorded under subsection (3) of Section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding there from any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub-section (6) of Section 173;
(iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under Section 164;
(v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub-section (5) of Section 173;
Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused :
Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court.”
B.Chapter XXIII deals with the mode of taking and recording evidence, namely, evidence in inquiries and trials. Section 272 contemplates the language of Courts. Section 272 reads as under:-
“272. Language of Courts.- The State Government may determine what shall be, for purposes of this Code, the language of each Court within the State other than the High Court.”
C.Section 273 reads as under:-
“273. Evidence to be taken in presence of accused.- Except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader.”
D.Section 277 deals with the language of record of evidence. Section 277 reads as under:-
“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 o 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.”
E.Section 279 deals with the interpretation of evidence to accused or his pleader. Section 279 reads as under:-
“279. Interpretation of evidence to accused or his pleader.- (1) Whenever any evidence is given in a language not understood by the accused, and he is present in Court in person, it shall be interpreted to him in open Court in a language understood by him.
(2) If he appears by pleader and the evidence is given in a language other than the language of the Court, and not understood by the pleader, it shall be interpreted to such pleader in that language.”
6.These are the Sections which are relevant for the purpose of considering the order under challenge passed by the learned Trial Judge. I am not required to deal with the merits of the case in respect of the arrest of the petitioner for the offence registered at Sahibaug Police Station and I am only considering the contentions in respect of the present case pertaining to an offence registered at Naranpura Police Station vide C.R.No.I-23/04for the offences under Section 306 of the IPC, etc. The charge-sheet in the present case is filed long back and it is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has received all the documents pertaining to the charge-sheet filed by the Police and the papers of the charge-sheet is received long back. The request of the petitioner is for supply of translated copies of the documents either in Hindi or in English as the applicant accused is not knowing Gujarati language and unless and until these documents, which are found in Gujarati, are furnished to the applicant either in Hindi or English. language, it would not be possible for him to understand about the case which he was involved and to instruct his lawyer for his defence. All the materials found in the charge-sheet are received by the petitioner long back and it is only after the charge was framed against the petitioner, the present application is filed for supply of translated documents either in Hindi or in English language. It is also an admitted position that so far as Gujarat State is concerned the Official language of recording evidence is Gujarati language. Even the language for investigation or enquiry by police agency is in Gujarati language. Therefore, whatever material collected during investigation by the police which is part of the charge-sheet and the statements which were found of the witnesses were recorded in Gujarati and while filing charge-sheet the petitioner was supplied the material in Gujarati language. I have seen the papers of charge-sheet. The statements of the witnesses recorded by the police are in Gujarati language.
7.Mr. Nanavati has in support of his submission placed reliance upon the first decision in the matter of Kottaya v. Emperor, reported in 1947 Privy Council 67, wherein the Privy Council has considered the provisions of Sections 537 and 162 of the Cr.P.C. (1898). It is necessary for me to refer to paragraph 7 which reads as under:-
“(7) Even on this basis, Mr.Pritt for the accused has argued that a breach of a direct and important provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be cured, but must lead to the quashing of the conviction. The Crown, on the other hand, contends that the failure to produce the note-book in question amounted merely to an irregularity in the proceedings which can be cured under the provisions of S.537, Criminal P.C., if the Court is satisfied that such irregularity has not in fact occasioned any failure of justice. There are, no doubt, authorities in India which lend some support to Mr.Pritt’s contention, and reference may be made to 49 ALL.475 in which the Court expressed the view that S.537, Criminal P.C.. applied only to errors of procedure arising out of mere inadvertence, and not to cases of disregard of, or disobedience to, mandatory provisions of the Code, and to 45 Mad. 820 in which the view was expressed that any failure to examine the accused under S.342, Criminal P.C., was fatal to the validity of the trial and could not be cured under S.537. In their Lordships’ opinion this argument is based on too narrow a view of the operation of S.537. When a trial is conducted in a manner different from that prescribed by the Code as in 28 I.A.257, the trial is bad, and no question of curing an irregularity arises; but if the trial is conducted substantially in the manner prescribed by the Code, but some irregularity occurs in the course of such conduct, the irregularity can be cured under S.537, and none the less so because the irregularity involves, as must nearly always be the case, a breach of one or more of the very comprehensive provisions of the Code. The distinction drawn in many of the cases in India between an illegality and an irregularity is one of degree rather than of kind. This view finds support in the decision of their Lordships’ Board in 5 RANG.53, where failure to comply with S.360, Criminal P.C., was held to be cured by Ss.535 and 537. The present case falls under S.537, and their Lordships hold the trial valid notwithstanding the breach of S.162.”
A.The another decision of the Apex Court is in the matter of Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1957 SC 623. In the said decision the Supreme court has also considered the decision of the Privy Council and other decisions. In the said decision it is also necessary for me to refer to paragraph 7, which reads as under:-
“7. The argument of Mr.Sethi, counsel for the appellant, is that since the defence, according to him, was not aware of what P.Ws.19, 20, 23 and 24 were to depose at the time the trial in the Sessions Court began, the principle that the accused must be made aware before hand of the case which he has to meet, has been violated. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure that copies of statements recorded under S.161 in a connected case should be made available to the defence though there is nothing prohibiting it and in the instant case it would have been better to have done so especially since the statements of these witnesses were not recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Muktsar apart from what they had stated before the Sub-Inspector of Jalalabad, copies of which could have been given to the defence. The Judicial Committee in Pulukuri Kotayya v. Emperor, ILR (1948) Mad 1: (AIR 1947 PC 67)(A) has laid down that if a trial is conducted substantially in the manner prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure but some irregularity occurred in the course of such conduct, the irregularity can be cured under S.537 of the Code, and nonetheless so because the irregularity involves a breach of one of the very comprehensive provisions of the Code. Such being the case, where it was established that the statements of witnesses recorded by a police officer during the course of the investigation were made available only at a late stage of the trial, no prejudice was caused to the accused even though the defence did not get them earlier. Their Lordships referred to two earlier cases, namely, ‘Baliram v. Emperor’ ILR (1945) Nag 151 : (A.I.R. 1945 Nag 1) (B) and ‘Emperor v. Bansidhar’ I L R 58 ALL 458: (A.I.R. 1931 ALL 262) (C) where the respective courts had refused to supply to the accused copies of statements made by witnesses to the police and had held that such a breach of the proviso to S.162 was a matter of gravity. In the circumstances of the case before the Judicial Committee it was held that no prejudice had been caused to the defence by the late supply of the notes of examination of the witnesses by the police officer. This court in case ‘Willie (William) Slaney v. The State of Madhya Pradesh’ 1955 2 S C R 1140 : (S) A I R 1956 SC 116) (D) elaborately discussed the question of the applicability of S.537 and came to the conclusion that in judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, courts must act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not to technicalities, and their main concern should be to see whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him fairly and clearly and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend himself. The discussions are at pp. 1153, 1183 and 1189 (of S C R) : (at pp. 122, 134, 135 and 137 of AIR) and need not be reiterated here. We can have no doubt whatever that in the circumstances of this case the accused had a fair trial. Having perused the statements given to the police officer in the Arms Act case, we are not able to find any serious : discrepancies between those statements and what had been deposed to at the present trial. But Mr.Sethi compared the statements of the witness with each other and brought to our notice that some of the later ones verbatim repetitions of what the earlier witnesses had stated and that being the case he contends that he could have cross-examined the four witnesses above named and elicited the fact that they were adherents of the police. There is no special rule or direction provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure affording guidance for police officers in recording statements of witnesses and usually what is done is that when a succeeding witness gives practically an identical story as to what a previous witness has stated, it is a matter of common knowledge that the words used by the police officer would be similar or identical.”
B.Mr. Nanavati has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in the matter of In re Rangaswami, reported in AIR 1957 Madras 508. While dealing with the provisions of Section 173(4) (as amended in 1955) and Sections 537, etc. and even in that judgment the court has also considered the decision of the Privy Council, the court has in term observed at page 511, which reads as under:-
“Thus it is clear that a duty is cast on the magistrate to see that copies of the document referred to in S.173 are furnished to the accused before the commencement of the enquiry. He cannot proceed with the enquiry without satisfying himself about this. It is conceded that in the present case copies of Tamil statements of witnesses recorded in the case diary of the investigating officer were not furnished to the accused. It must, therefore, be held that the provisions of S.173(4), Criminal P.C., and Sub-Sec.(3) of S.207-A have not been complied with.”
It is necessary for me to observe that while considering this decision, admittedly the court language was in Tamil and as the material, which were recorded in Tamil, were not furnished to the accused, the court has accordingly held that the provisions of the Code have not been complied with.
C.Mr.Nanavati has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Harmindersingh Pritamsingh Virdi v. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 1991 Cri.L.J. 241. In the said case a request was made by the accused for supply of material during investigation with the English translation. In the said case Government has issued Notification on 14.7.1969 by declaring the language of the court. The court has also referred to the notification which is issued on 14.7.1969 and the wording of the notification were reproduced, which reads as under:-
“In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 558 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), in its application to the State of Maharashtra and in supersession of all previous notifications issued in this behalf the Government of Maharashtra hereby, with effect from the 1st day of 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) except for the following purposes….”
In the said case the material in the form of charge-sheet furnished to the accused were in Marathi language. The advocate of the accused was not familiar with the Marathi language and accordingly a request was made to the Sessions Court for supply of translation of the police statements in English and the request was rejected by learned Sessions Judge. In that background in view of the notification issued by the Government, the High Court had directed for furnishing all documents translated to be in English language before the commencement of the trial.
D.Another decision of the Apex Court is in the matter of Purshottam Jethanand v.The State of Kutch, reported in AIR 1954 SC 700. There also the Supreme Court has considered the provisions of Section 162(1) and right of accused to be furnished the copy of the statements and the effect of refusal to supply the copy of the statements. In paragraph 4 of the said decision it is observed by the Apex Court, which reads as under:-
“(4) We do not think that, having regard to the terms of Section 162, Cr.P.C., the first of these arguments can be sustained. The statutory right of the accused to be furnished with statements appears clearly to relate to a trial in respect of the very offence which was investigated and does not apply to a trial for a non-cognizable offence in respect of which there has been in fact no investigation. The proviso to Section 162(1) which gives the right to obtain copies relates to “‘such’ inquiry or trial” i.e. to “enquiry or trial of any offence under investigation (under this chapter) at the time when the statement was made”.
E.Another decision of the Bombay High Court is in the case of State v. J.D. Daroga, reported in AIR 1959 Bombay 314 and the effect of noncompliance of provisions of Section 173(4) of the Cr.P.C. was considered. In the said decision, the earlier decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1957 SC 623 was also considered. In the said case the grievance was made for non supply of the statement of Shri Shah where Shri Shah was to give evidence and the copy of the statement of Shri Shall was not furnished. In light of that fact, the court has considered about sub-section (4) of Section 173 by observing that by non-supply of such documents, the defence may likely to be prejudiced.
8.Mr. Arun Oza, learned P.P., has while opposing this Revision Application vehemently urged that admittedly as the investigating agency has carried out the investigation of the case in the language recognized, i.e. Gujarati language and whatever material collected during investigation when the charge-sheet is filed all the documents in Gujarati language were furnished long back and even the language of the Court is also Gujarati language. According to Mr. Oza that it is not the case of the defence that the material, which were collected in the form of charge-sheet, is not received and in view of the fact that the charge-sheet was submitted within the stipulated time, all the materials which were gathered in the form of charge-sheet were possessed by the petitioner. The petitioner is also represented through advocate and the advocate who is also engaged also knows Gujarati language as well as the English language, namely, he knows the language of the court. The application which was submitted by the applicant before the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate though fixed for hearing, once the case is committed to the trial and when the charge is framed, the rejection of the said application by the court is justified and the Court has accordingly in its order observed while rejecting the application. According to Mr.Oza that even as per the Code of Criminal Procedure once any cognizable offence has been investigated and when the police submits report by way of filing charge-sheet, the accused is entitled to get all the papers of charge-sheet which the prosecution has placed reliance in support of the prosecution case. Mr. Oza has also contended that even on examining the case, where the accused is completely illiterate and is not in a position to read any language, even the requirement is to furnish the copies which were collected during investigation and the person is entitled for legal aid to be provided during trial and even there is a provision that even during trial, as observed earlier, even by recording the evidence, the evidence which is recorded is to be interpreted.
A.Mr.Oza has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the matter of Ashokkumar Prabhudas Modi v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2001(3) GLH 796.2 Though the case was on different subject pertaining to Articles 21 and 39A of the Constitution of India for fair and impartial trial, which is fundamental concept of criminal justice administration system and the court has also examined the provisions of Section 279 of the Cr.P.C. and the ground for which the application for transfer was sought for was highlighted that a Hindi speaking person non-Gujarati, who does not know vernacular language, a language where the trial would be conducted and the said accused was unrepresented by lawyer and had made request to the court to supply the copy of the charge-sheet translated in Hindi language or to provide an interpreter as provided under Section 279 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same was not supplied in Hindi language nor interpreter was provided to him and thereby he was caused serious prejudice in conducting fair and impartial trial at the hands of the concerned Judge and on that ground a transfer was sought for of his trial from one Sessions to another. In paragraph 18, the learned single Judge has while considering the case in term observed which according to me is necessary for me to reproduce, which reads as under: –
“18. It may be appreciated that petitioner No.4 gave an application vide Ex.20 praying to supply the copy of the charge-sheet in Hindi language. On the said application, the learned Additional City Sessions Judge vide order dated November 29, 1999 observed that the case was adjourned time and again for enabling the accused to engage the advocate of his choice or to get the appointment of the advocate from the panel of Legal Aid Committee but he has not engaged any. There is nothing on record to suggest that the accused does not know Gujarati language. On the contrary the application itself has been directed in Gujarati and during interaction with the learned P.P. Mr.Desai, the accused did answer in Gujarati. On the inquiry made by the Court he has stated that he is staying in Gujarat since last more than fifteen years. Hence, it is not believable that the accused does not know Gujarati. Even otherwise, there is no provision in Cr.P.C. to provide copy of charge-sheet in Hindi Language. Hence this application is rejected. Similarly, petitioner No.4 gave one more application vide Ex.66, dated January 6, 2000 wherein it was stated that Mr. Habib Shaikh, the advocate appointed by way of legal aid has not discussed anything with him with regard to his defence. Therefore he did not want the services of that advocate who may be permitted to retire as he wanted to plead his case himself. He further prayed that he may be provided with an interpreter so that he can understand the proceeding of the Court which is conducted in Gujarati language. The learned Additional City Sessions Judge rejected the said application on the same day by observing that in the application he has shown distrust upon the said advocate and therefore Mr. Habib Shaikh has also requested the Court to permit him to retire from the case. It clearly transpires that the accused No.4, though knows Gujarati, as observed in earlier order dated November 29, 1999 below Ex.20, keeps on giving applications to delay the proceedings. Even when the charge was framed and explained to him, he has not raised any such contention that he did not understand the Gujarati language. Under the circumstances, the request of the accused to interpret every tiling which is being recorded in the court in Hindi language through the Court is not accepted. Since the accused wants to defend by himself and does not want to engage any advocate, Mr. Habib Shaikh is permitted to retire from the case and this application stands disposed of accordingly.”
It is an admitted fact that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to supply the material relied upon in the charge-sheet to be furnished in Hindi language.
9.As observed earlier the Gujarati language is the language accepted by the Government and all the investigation/ enquiry is being conducted by the police in Gujarati language and accordingly recording of the statement of the witnesses is in Gujarati language. In Gujarat the court language is also accepted as Gujarati language and accordingly even before the Trial Court the evidence of the witnesses will be led in Gujarati language.
10.Even as found from the order under challenge that while filing application, the accused was represented by the advocate, who is practising in Trial Court. It is also an admitted fact that the police has filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons long back on 25.3.2004 and the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial in the year about September, 2004. It is true that one application was submitted by the petitioner to the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for supply of translated material either in English or in Hindi on 3.5.2004 and though the application was fixed for hearing while committing the case to the Sessions, the said application was not heard and disposed off and while transmitting the said case to the Sessions Court, as brought to my notice by the learned P.P., that such application is tagged on with the papers of Sessions Case No.240/04 as informed by the learned Special P.P. In light of this fact, this court is of the view that there is no specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure as regards supply of material either in Hindi language or English language and as the material in the form of charge-sheet is already recorded in the Gujarati language, which is supplied to the petitioner long back and the petitioner accused has already engaged advocate to represent him in a case before the Sessions Court and even the application for discharge filed by the petitioner in the court of the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City being Criminal Revision No. 177/04 dated 23.8.2004 was also decided by the learned Addl.City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City by rejecting the said application and on examining the order under challenge passed by the learned Magistrate, it was held that there is no irregularity or illegality is found in the said order and thereby the order passed by the learned Magistrate committing the case to the Sessions for trial was not interfered with by the Appellate Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. I have also perused the memo of Revision Application No. 177/04 and the order passed thereon by the leaned Addl.City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad dated 17.12.2004.
11.In light of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and as per the judgments cited before me, it is clear that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to supply material in the language known to the accused persons. Admittedly the investigation is being carried out by officers in Gujarati language and accordingly the statements of the witnesses and other documents are prepared in Gujarati language. The official language of the State is Gujarati language and Gujarati language is the language accepted by the investigating agency for the investigation of any complaint. Alongwith the charge-sheet the material is already furnished to the petitioner accused long back and the petitioner could have got it those documents translated into the language known to him, as the petitioner is being represented through the lawyer. Now the matter has reached at the stage of trial and the case is fixed before the learned Presiding Judge on 21.2.2005. In the documents forming part of the charge-sheet, some of the documents are in Gujarati, namely, the statements of the witnesses. The petitioner is already represented by engaging advocate and the petitioner could have got translated these documents as the petitioner has got sufficient time. In view of the provisions in the Cr.P.C. as well as in the judgments on the point, the petitioner has no right to get those copies translated in the language known to him and the court was right in rejecting the application made by the petitioner, and further the petitioner could have got those documents translated by his own or the advocate engaged by him was also required to get those documents translated into the language known to the petitioner as the petitioner has already engaged a lawyer of his choice. Even as per the Scheme of the Cr.P.C., for the accused who is not in a position to engage an advocate of his choice the Court provides legal aid to him and even if the accused is not knowing the language of the court, there is also a provision in the Code which will safeguard the interest of the accused during trial. Accordingly this court is of the view that there is no interference is required in the order under challenge while exercising my re-visional jurisdiction. Revision application is accordingly deserves to be dismissed. As the petitioner has got sufficient time as the papers of charge-sheet is received long back, he could have got the documents translated into the language known to him. However this court is also of the view that in the interest of justice, though the court is dismissing this Revision Application and as the case is now fixed before the Trial Court on 21.2.2005, if the petitioner or through his advocate a request is made for seeking short adjournment to enable him to get those documents translated into the language known to him, the court can sympathetically consider such request and grant reasonable time to the petitioner by adjourning the trial to enable the petitioner to get the documents translated in the language known to him. Accordingly with these observations, this Revision Application deserves to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected.