SAJAL SURESHKUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(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 can not 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.