GANGADHARAN MOHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four revisional applications have been filed by the accused/ petitioner as per provisions of Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. against the order dated 11.4.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Port Blair in G. R. Case No. 338 of 1996, G. R. Case No. 638 of 1996, G. R. Case No. 1112 of 1996 and G. R. Case No. 639 of 1996 under Sections 420, 467, 468 read with Section 120B I.P.C. All those revisional applications were directed to be heard together and as such those revisional applications were heard analogously by this Court and are taken up together for passing order.

(2.) It appears that those four cases were started against the accused/ petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468 read with Section 120B I.P.C. On the basis of the complaint made by the Deputy Commissioner, Andaman, the Central Bureau of Investigation started all those four cases against the accused/petitioner and those were pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair. The accused/petitioner appeared in all those cases and was released on bail. The cases were investigated and after completion of the investigation charge sheets were filed against the accused petitioner in all those four cases. Charges could not be framed against the accused/ petitioner as the prosecution failed to comply with the provisions of Section 207 Cr. P.C. properly. After the documents were supplied to the petitioner, he submitted applications in all those cases before the learned Magistrate stating therein that the documents/papers as relied upon by the prosecution and as supplied to the petitioner, were written in English and as such the petitioner submitted a petition before the learned Magistrate praying for translating those papers into Malayalam language which is the mother tongue of the petitioner so that he can defend his case or instruct his counsel properly. It was further stated in those applications that the petitioner was selected for attending a conference at Osaka, Japan from 3.5.2000 to 22.5.2000 and for that purpose in all those four cases he prayed before the learned Magistrate for granting him necessary permission to visit Japan. The prayers of the petitioner in all those four cases were taken up for hearing on 11.4.2000 and the learned Magistrate by his impugned order was pleased to reject those prayers. The learned Magistrate observed that there was nothing wrong in supplying those documents which were in English language, which was the language of the Court and according to the learned Magistrate there was no provision in Section 207 Cr. P.C. that copies of the papers relied upon by the prosecution should be supplied in the mother language of the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said orders of the learned Magistrate the petitioner has preferred these revisional applications claiming that the learned Magistrate failed to consider the actual purport of Section 207 Cr. P.C. According to the petitioner, learned Magistrate failed to consider that although there was no such provision in the Cr. P.C., still in order to give proper opportunity to the accused to defend his case effectively it was absolutely necessary that copies of those documents, as relied upon by the prosecution, should be supplied to the accused/petitioner in his mother language. The object of Section 207 Cr. P.C. is to ensure fair justice to an accused and that object cannot be fulfilled unless those documents are translated in Malayalam language and handed over to the accused/petitioner in order to defend his case properly. Non-supply of those documents in the mother language of the accused/petitioner, is certainly a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused/petitioner to get fair justice in a Court of law. The impugned orders, as passed by the learned Magistrate in rejecting the prayers of the petitioner, certainly caused violation of the principle of the fair justice and as such by filing these revisional applications, the accused/ petitioner has prayed for setting aside those orders by passing appropriate direction.

(3.) I have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for both the sides. Although the revisional applications have been filed mainly on two grounds i.e. non-supply of the relevant documents in the mother language of the accused and not granting permission to the accused in attending a conference at Osaka, Japan, still at the time of hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner confined his argument only on the point of non-supply of the relevant documents in the mother language of the accused/petitioner. So I am to confine myself in considering the question as to whether the accused/ petitioner is entitled to get those copies in his mother language or not learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that as per provisions of Section 207 Cr. P.C. the prosecution is bound to supply the copies of the documents to which it wants to rely and compliance of the said provision is a condition precedent for proceeding with a trial of the case Section 207 Cr. P.C. runs as follows:-