ABDUL NAZER MAHDANI AND ORS. Vs. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM, CB CID, COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision case has arisen in this way:

(2.) THE learned Public Prosecutor strongly objects this petition on the ground that in Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure it is not contemplated for furnishing of translated copies. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the accused are entitled to the copies of the original police report and original documents but the translated copy cannot be granted to them under Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that so far as the trial is concerned. Code of Criminal Procedure envisages all necessary protection to the accused. In the sense because of the language barrier, his case should not suffer. The learned Public Prosecutor drew my attention to the provisions of Sections 4 -A and 4 -B of the Tamil Nadu Official Language Act 1956. The Recommendation of the forty first law commission report and also cited the following authorities: (i) In re Ramachandran : A.I.R. 1957 Mad 505; (ii) In re Rangaswami : A.I.R. 1957 Mad 508; (iii) Arputharaj v. State Etc. : 1998 1 L.W. (Crl.) 379; and the decision rendered by me in Crl.O.P. No. 2030 of 2000 on 05.07.2000. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even the non -furnishing of the copies will not vitiate the trial and to stress his point, referred to the decision reported in Rajendran and Anr. v. State, 1992 (2) Crime 755.