RAMAMURTHY Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed for setting aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.314 of 2022 in S.C.No.38 of 2019 dtd. 7/11/2022 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Hosur.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is one of the accused in S.C.No.38 of 2019. Petitioner was furnished copies of the documents under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C in Tamil. Petitioner could not read or write Tamil language because he is not conversant with Tamil language. Unmindful of the Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, copies of the documents have been furnished to him mechanically in a language, which is foreign to him. Therefore, he filed a petition for supplying copies of the documents in Telugu language. That petition was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge in Crl.M.P.No.314 of 2021. Challenging the dismissal order, he filed this Criminal Original Petition. He further submitted that unless petitioner knows what are the allegations made in the complaint and the final report against him, what are the statements given by the witnesses against him, in the language known to him i.e., Telugu language, it is not possible for petitioner to understand the case against him and give suitable instructions to his Advocate to defend him. Merely because his Advocate knows Tamil and his Advocate conducts the case on his behalf, it is not a ground for rejecting his genuine claim of seeking the documents in Telugu language. Ever since from the date of arrest, accused is entitled to know the reason for arrest in the language known to him and every other incriminating circumstances available against him. If the copies of the documents relied by the prosecution are not given in Telugu language to him, he could not be in a position to make up a proper defence and that would certainly deprive him of his life and personal liberty. It is not permissible under the law. Thus, dismissal of Crl.M.P.No.314 of 2022 is not correct and thus, he prayed for setting aside the order and for a direction to supply copies of the documents relied by the prosecution in Telugu language. In support of his submission, he pressed into service following judgments/orders:-

(3.) In response, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that petitioner is one of the accused in S.C.No.38 of 2019 registered for the offence under Sec. 341, 347, 364, 395, 302 IPC read with 396 and 397, 201 and 109 IPC. In the said case, the accused assaulted the drivers Saravanan and Srikanth @ Kandasamy of the lorry bearing registration number TN 28 AM 6824 with iron rod on their head and committed the murder with a view to take away the copper plates. The dead bodies of the drivers were thrown in Pambaleru river at Goodur_on Chennai to Hyderabad Highway. Petitioner was the owner of Auto bearing registration number AP-03-TC-4264 and assisted in smuggling the copper plates. Petitioner engaged an Advocate in Hosur, who is conversant with Tamil language. Hosur is the border area of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka and petitioner also knows Tamil. Petitioner filed quash petition and revision petition before the trial court narrating the details about the case. It makes clear that only after understanding the case against him, he filed quash petition and revision petition. The copies were furnished to the accused under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C in 2018. Charges were framed against the accused on 31/3/2021. Therefore filing of the petition for seeking copies of the documents in Telugu language is nothing but an abuse of process of Court with a view to protract the proceedings. The trial court can make arrangements under Sec. 279 Cr.P.C to interpret the evidence, if the evidence is not understood by the accused and if it is in the language other than the language spoken by the accused. In Crl.M.P.No.62 of 2021 filed for discharge, petitioner has taken a stand that there is no material available against him except the confession. It shows that he is aware of the case against him and the incriminating materials available against him. The petition was rightly dismissed and therefore, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) prayed for dismissal of this petition. In support of his submission, he relied on the following judgments reported in: