Judgment :- The petition is filed by the 10th and 11th accused in PRC No.2 of 2005 seeking direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram to furnish Tamil translated copy of the final report as well as 63 other documents which are found in English language. 2. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram has chosen to turn down the request of the petitioners herein relying upon the two recent decisions rendered by this Court. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram had already furnished copies of the documents found cited in the final report, but the petitioners would contend that they, being Tamilians, want the final report as well as the 63 other documents in English in the language of Tamil for better understanding of the case as against them and for better appreciation of the course of trial. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners referring to the Official Languages Act, 1956 and the Government order passed by the State of Tamil Nadu declaring the language of the Court as 'Tamil' and the direction to the Subordinate Judges to write their judgments also in Tamil, would submit that the petitioners are entitled to get Tamil version of the final report and 63 other documents in English for the purpose of following the case closely by them. He would further contend by referring to Sections 211, 272, 273 and 277 (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the charge and the other trial proceedings of the Criminal Court shall be in the language of the Court. As the language of the Subordinate Courts is Tamil, the petitioners are entitled to get the translated copies of English documents in Tamil. 5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/complainant would submit that the latest judgments of this Court have clinched the point raised by the petitioners herein. It is his vehement submission that Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does contemplate furnishing of copies of documents and not translated copies of documents. 6. 5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/complainant would submit that the latest judgments of this Court have clinched the point raised by the petitioners herein. It is his vehement submission that Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does contemplate furnishing of copies of documents and not translated copies of documents. 6. It is true that A. RAMAN, J. of this Court, in Crl.O.P.Nos.14620, 14621 and 16888 of 1997 dated 18.12.1998, has held after an elaborate discussion referring to the rights of the citizens as contemplated in the Constitution of India and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights adopted by India that the accused is entitled to get copies of documents in the language known to him. 7. The said judgement of A. RAMAN, J. is not in consonance with the ratio laid down by S.M. Sidickk, J. In Arputharaj Vs. State Etc. (1998-1-L.W.(Crl.) 379). S.M. Sidickk, J. has held that the accused is not entitled to get as a matter of right the translated copy of the documents under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The copies of documents produced as such by the Investigating Agency will have to be supplied free of cost to the accused and not translated copies of such documents, it has been declared by him. 8. Thereafter B.AKBAR BASHA KHADIRI, J., In K. Natarajan Vs. State By The Inspector Of Police, CBI/SPE/ACB/Chennai-6 (2000-2-L.W. (Crl.) 895) has observed as follows:- "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 document 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 language are recognised as official language. India is a country which has all the riches, wealth, climates and cultures, where eighteen language are recognised 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 in Section 207 Cr.P.C., adumbrates only furnishing of copies and not translated copies. This Crl.O.P is therefore dismissed." 9. The very same learned Judge in Abdul Nazer Mahadani And Others Vs. State By Inspector Of Police (2001-1-L.W.(Crl.) 97) has observed as follows:- "Needless to point out that in case of detenues, they are not entitled to have legal advise through their advocates. They have to understand the grounds and give their reply. Only under those circumstances, it has been held that the grounds should be supplied to the detenue in the language known to him. Here the accused have ample opportunity of engaging of an advocate of their own or and the Court would take care of engaging an advocate who is well versed in English, Tamil and Malayalam, who can take care of the interest of the accused as a state brief. After all, Code of Criminal Procedure protects the interest of the accused and not the welfare of the accused, for the Code to take care of the accused and consider his comforts at every stage right from the setting the criminal law in motion till the end of the proceedings. I agree with the view expressed by the Division Bench in In re Rengaswamy (AIR 1957 Madras 508) and also S.M.Sidickk, J. in Arputharaj's case reported in 1998-1-L.W. (Crl.) 379)." 10. The learned Judge, having adverted to the fact that the accused who was not in incarceration and has access to legal think tank cannot seek for translated copies of the documents when Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically direct furnishing of copies of the statements recorded and the documents collected as such by the Investigating Agency. 11. The judgement passed by the A. RAMAN, J. in the aforesaid case was critically analysed by AKBAR BASHA KHADIRI, J., to follow the earlier view of this Court. 12. 11. The judgement passed by the A. RAMAN, J. in the aforesaid case was critically analysed by AKBAR BASHA KHADIRI, J., to follow the earlier view of this Court. 12. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in the aforesaid context would refer to the authority in Shridhar Vs. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur ( Air 1990 Sc 307 ) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that if a single Judge disagrees with the decision of the another single Judge it is appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative decision. 13. In this case, except the departure made by A. RAMAN, J., the march of law by this Court was firm and steady on the subject matter. The position laid down by S.M. SIDICKK, J. And AKBAR BASHA KHADIRI, J. has got crystalised. Now the latest position of law on this subject affirmed and reaffirmed by the aforesaid Hon'ble Judges rule the field. Therefore at this stage when the air is not clouded, it is totally redundant and superfluous to refer the decision of A. RAMAN, J. to a larger Bench. 14. It is not as if the petitioners are transacting with the Court only in Tamil language. The petition itself has been filed in the language of English by the petitioner seeking copies of documents in Tamil version. They are not in judicial custody cut off from the normal life. They have engaged lawyers well versed in the language of English. Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates furnishing of copies of the statements recorded and documents collected and not translated copies of such statements and documents. Further, if any error is committed by inadvertence in the translation, that will definitely be made as an issue by the accused with a view to elongate the process of trial. The petitioners, who have engaged competent lawyers, can seek their guidance with regard to the statements and documents in English. If necessary, the petitioners can go in for translation of those documents at their own cost for the purpose of better understanding of the course of trial. 15. The Court finds that the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram has rightly decided the issue in Crl.M.P.No.1806 of 2005 in PRC No.II005 and there is no warrant for interference with such a well considered order passed by him. 16. 15. The Court finds that the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram has rightly decided the issue in Crl.M.P.No.1806 of 2005 in PRC No.II005 and there is no warrant for interference with such a well considered order passed by him. 16. In the result, the criminal original petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petition also stands dismissed.