B RAMANNAMMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The facts inter alia leading to this bail application are that on December 3, 1992 at about 11-20 hours Sub-Inspector Mohammad Aslam, SHO (CCS) along with Police Party conducted personal search of the petitioner who disembarked from the ship MV Nicobar at Haddo Jetty. It is the case of the State opposite party that 7 Kg. 650 grammes of Ganja was recovered from her steel trunk. After taking out 200 grams illicit Ganja for chemical sample from the recovered Ganja for examination by the experts and sealed and seized all the Ganja under the cover of Panchanama and the petitioner was arrested and the investigation was entrusted to the SHO by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (CID). The investigation is now complete and the charge-sheet has also been framed.

(2.) The only question involved in this case is whether bail can be granted in view of the specific provisions of section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1985). It may be mentioned in this connection that the petitioner also moved before the learned Sessions Judge for bail but the said prayer was not granted in view of the stringent provision of section 37 of the said Act of 1985. Thereafter the petitioner filed the bail application before us on February 17, 1993 when the said application was rejected at that stage with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh bail application on proper materials.

(3.) The petitioner has again moved before us for bail in view of the liberty granted by us on earlier occasion. All the records have been produced by the learned Public Prosecutor. The relevant records being Panchanama, Charge sheet and FIR were translated in English by the State and produced before us. We have seen the copy of the original Panchanama which is written in Hindi. It is true that the said document bears the signatures of two persons as witnesses as also the signature of the accused petitioner but it is the specific case of the petitioner that she does not understand Hindi being Telugu speaking person. It also appears that she has signed the Panchanama in Telugu language. It does not appear that the contents of the said document was explained to her. It is well settled that if a document is to be relied upon so as to be used against a person who does not understand the particular language in which it is written the same is to be explained to the person in the language which he or she understands. There are several decisions to which we may refer in this context. Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack and another reported in AIR 1969 SC 43; (2) Smt. Raziya Umar Bakshi v. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1980 SC 1751; (3) Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner & Secretary, Government of Kerala and others reported in AIR 1986 SC 687 ; (4) Mr. Kubic Daruisz v. Union of India & Others reported in AIR 1990 SC 605; and (5) Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India reported in (1981) 2 SCC 427 : AIR 1981 SC 728.