ORDER: The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner herein is an Ex.M.L.A. of the Pondicherry Assembly according to him, the respondent has registered a case culminating in C.C.No.2 of 1999 pending on the file of the Special Judge for C.B.I. cases, Pondicherry, alleging that he had committed an offence punishable under Sec.8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sec.116, I.P.C. and Sec.34, I.P.C. The petitioner had appeared before the trial court and the trial court, furnished copies of the documents to him. According to him, his mother-tongue is Tamil and he has studied only upto IX standard. Therefore, he seeks that copies of documents required to be furnished to him under Sec.207, Crl.P.C. should be in Tamil only. Some of the documents are in English. He does not know English language and therefore he had preferred Cr.M.P.No.780 of 1999 on the file of the Special Judge seeking an order to furnish him with translated copies of documents. 2. The learned Special Judge enquired into the matter and came to the conclusion that Sec.207 Crl.P.C. provides for furnishing copies alone and not for furnishing translated copies, and accordingly dismissed that petition. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Special Judge, the petitioner has preferred this Crl.O.P. questioning the correctness of the orders. 3. Heard both the sides. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a semi-literate, who had studied upto IX Standard in Tamil Medium, that his vernacular is Tamil, and therefore, he is not in a position to understand the contents of the copies of the documents in English. 4. Careful perusal of the order passed by the learned Special Judge would go to show that of the copies furnished to the petitioner, the final report is in Tamil, most of the documents are in Tamil, and the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer of the Pondicherry Police are also in Tamil, but the statements recorded by the C.B.I. Officers alone are in English. It has also been observed by the learned Special Judge that the statements recorded by the C.B.I. Officers which are in English are not different from the statements given by the witnesses in Tamil to the Investigating Officer of the Pondicherry Police. 5. It has also been observed by the learned Special Judge that the statements recorded by the C.B.I. Officers which are in English are not different from the statements given by the witnesses in Tamil to the Investigating Officer of the Pondicherry Police. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strongly relied upon the decision rendered by my learned brother A.Raman, J. in Crl.O.P. Nos.14620 and 14621 and 16888 of 1997. For the sake of convenience, the above Crl.O.Ps. can be referred to as Sasikala case. My learned brother A.Raman, J. has considered the question in extenso and came to the conclusion that the language of the subordinate criminal court is in Tamil and the proceedings have to be held only in Tamil. My learned brother A.Raman, J. has further observed that Sec.207, Crl.P.C. does not bar the issuance of copies in Tamil. 6. The learned counsel also referred to a decision reported in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 911, which is a case concerning a detenu who was kept in confinement under Sec.3(1)(a)(ii) of the Preventive Detention Act. 7.Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though the court language may be in Tamil, the provision of Sec.207, Crl.P.C. only contemplates furnishing copies of documents and it does not give room for furnishing translated copies of documents, because translated copies cannot be considered as copies of the original documents. In support of his contention, the learned Public Prosecutor cited two decisions reported in Arputharaj v. State, (1998)1 C.T.C. 409 and another judgment rendered by my learned brother A.Ramamurthi, J. in Crl.O.P.Nos.4711 to 4714 of 1999. In Arputharaj’s case, under identical circumstance, Sidickk, J. has held as under: "3.....Sec.207 of Crl.P.C. states that the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused free of costs, a copy of the police report, the First Information Report, Statements recorded under Sec.161((3) of Crl.P.C. of all the prosecution witnesses whom the prosecution proposed to examine them, the confession statements recorded under Sec.164 of Crl.P.C. and any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the Police report under Sec.173(5) of Crl.P.C. Nowhere in Sec.207 of Crl.P.C. it has been stated that the Magistrate is bound or the police is bound to furnish Tamil translation copies of such of those documents which are in English". Sidickk, J. has also referred to another decision reported in R.Ramachandran, In re., A.I.R. 1957 Mad. 505 at 507, where a Division Bench of this Court has observed as under: "If witnesses therefore speak in their own language and if the English translation of those statements are not to be considered as statements made by those 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 be considered as depositions of these witnesses." Sidickk, J. has also referred to the decision reported in Rengaswamy, In re., A.I.R. 1957 Mad. 508 at 512 at the end of para.9 wherein a Division Bench of this Court has observed as under: "The translation referred to obviously was not a correct one. Translations are subject to errors. If, therefore, statements were recorded in the case diary in the language of the witnesses, will not amount to furnishing copies of statements recorded in the case diary". Having given an anxious consideration to the question that has arisen in that matter, Sidickk, J. has held as under: 9. "It follows from the above decisions that if the statements were recorded in the language of the witnesses then furnishing of translation of those statements will to amount to furnishing copies of the statements as required under Sec.207 of Crl.P.C. In short furnishing of translation copies cannot be equivalent to the furnishing of copies as required under Sec.207 of Crl.P.C. A plain reading of Sec.207 of Crl.P.C. will show that translation is not the duty of the court and only furnishing of the copies is the duty of the court. In the present case no prejudice was caused to the petitioner/A4 since it is not state nowhere in the affidavit of the petitioner that his advocate did not know English and so he was not able to translate such of these documents in English in to Tamil to the petitioner/A4." 8. In the present case no prejudice was caused to the petitioner/A4 since it is not state nowhere in the affidavit of the petitioner that his advocate did not know English and so he was not able to translate such of these documents in English in to Tamil to the petitioner/A4." 8. In other case, viz., in Crl.O.P. Nos.4711 to 4714 of 1999, A.Ramamurthi, J., has considered the relevant provisions of Crl.P.C. in extenso and had come to the same conclusion arrived at by Sidickk, J. that Sec.207, Crl.P.C. provides for furnishing of copies of documents and it does not say that the court would translate the documents in a different language and furnish copies to the accuse and in such a case the translated copy cannot be considered as a copy of the document. Further as referred to by Sidickk, J., there is possibility of several errors creeping in translation, which may some times be fatal. 9. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of the G.O. passed by the Pondicherry Government i.e., G.O. Ms.No.31/73-LLD., dated 11th April, 1973, wherein it is stated that Tamil is the official language in all the criminal courts, but that is only for the purpose of recording evidence in all the proceedings. Recording the evidence in a particular language or official language in all courts has nothing to do with the furnishing of copies, because copies are to be furnished as in the original documents. 10. Let us consider the second proviso to Sec.207, Crl.P.C. which recites as under: "Provided further that if the magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in court." Supposing if a document falling under this category of voluminous document is in a different language, what is the accused going to do? Can he ask for a copy? Can he ask for a translated copy of the document in law? He has to take the pains of perusing the document of his won accord or through his Counsel. Can he ask for a copy? Can he ask for a translated copy of the document in law? He has to take the pains of perusing the document of his won accord or through his Counsel. A combined reading of Sec.207, Crl.P.C. with the provisos to it would go to show that the duty of the court is to furnish a copy of the document in whatever language they are found and if they are voluminous, to allow the accused to peruse the document. 11. Factually, in this case, it is stated that the petitioner has engaged a counsel who is well-versed in English language. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the affidavit filed before the Special Court asking for Tamil copy of the documents is only in English. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.780 of 1999 for discharge. The affidavit filed in support of the said petition is also in English. When the petitioner can understand English to the extent of giving an affidavit and when he has legal assistance of an advocate who is well-versed in English, it cannot be said that he actually needs the documents to be translated in his language. India is a country which has all the riches, wealth, climates and cultures, where eighteen languages are recognized as official language. If persons belonging to various States speaking various languages conjointly committed an offence, it cannot be said that the documents should be translated in eighteen languages or more depending upon the number of accused and the language spoken by them, and furnished to them. I am satisfied that provisions to Sec.207, Crl.P.C. adumbrates only furnishing of copies and not translated copies. This Crl.O.P. is therefore dismissed.