ARPUTHARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the petitioner/accused in p. R. C. No. 1 of 1994 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. VII at Madurai and this application is filed under Sec. 482 of Crl. P. C, to direct the respondent police to furnish Tamil translation copies of final report and the statement of the doctors recorded under Sec. 161 of Crl. P. C, Use accident report and the wound certificate of Palaniappan.

(2.) THE petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 4 in p. R. C. No. 1 of 1994 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. VII at Madurai for the offences under Secs. 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 307 of I. P. C. THE only ground that is raged in the affidavit of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an illiterate and he could not read and write English, and because of his illiteracy he was unable to read and understand the gist of the changes against him and also he was not able to understand the statements of the doctors. Nowhere in the affidavit it is stated by the petitioner that his advocate was not conversant with English, and his advocate was not able to understand the gist of the charges and the statements of the doctors which are in English. THE petitioner has got legal advice and guidance to translate such of those documents, which are in English into Tamil, and notwithstanding the same he has filed this application seeking a direction to the respondent police to furnish tamil translation of the copies of charge sheet, statements of the doctors, accident Register and wound certificate, and such a direction cannot be granted inasmuch as there is no averment in the affidavit of the petition stating that his advocate could not understand English and could not translate the documents which are in English into Tamil.

(3.) THE learned State Public Prosecutor mr. R. Shanmugasundaram has also drawn by attention to the observation made by another Division Bench of our Madras High Court in the decision reported in ramchandran, In re. , A. I. R. 1957 Mad. 505: 1957 M. L. J. (Crl.) 13 and at the end of para 13 wherein it was held as follows: ' If witnesses therefore speak in their own language and if the English translations of those statements are not to be considered as statements made by these witnesses, then we do not see how when the witnesses in this case who admittedly must have spoken only in Tamil in court, the English translation of the statements recorded by the Judge as the deposition of the witnesses can ever by considered as depositions of these witnesses. '