Judgment :- 1. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking a direction to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore to furnish clean copy of 173(2) papers in Tamil translation, which is the petitioners mother Tongue. 2. The petitioner has been facing charges under Section 120(B) and 302 of I.P.C. in S.C.No.145 of 2010, pending trial on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even in spite of filing the charge sheet by the respondent Police, the petitioner is not able to understand the charges, which are levelled against him as all the documents are in English version. He has also urged before this Court that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore might be directed to furnish the copies of the charge sheet in the vernacular language of Tamil. 3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has strongly objected the contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner saying that the petitioner, being the accused in the above said case, had already received clean copies of the charge sheet on 20.10.2010 and to that he had also made an endorsement on the records of the case bundle. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that after hearing both sides, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore had framed necessary charges under Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act and under Section 120B and 302 I.P.C (6 counts) r/w 34 of I.P.C. After explaining the ingredients of the charges to the petitioner. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also adverted that since the petitioner himself had received the clean copies and necessary charges have also been framed against the accused the request of the petitioner, at this stage, could not be considered as he is trying to protract the proceedings by filing this petition. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also adverted that since the petitioner himself had received the clean copies and necessary charges have also been framed against the accused the request of the petitioner, at this stage, could not be considered as he is trying to protract the proceedings by filing this petition. 4. In this connection, it may be relevant to refer the proviso to Section 207 of Cr.P.C. which enacts as follows: "SUPPLY TO THE ACCUSED OF COPY OF POLICE REPORT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS:-- In any case where the proceedings has been instituted on a Police Report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:- (i) the police report; (ii) the first information report recorded u/s.154; (iii)the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of Section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub-section (6) of Section 173; (iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under Section 164; (v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub-section (5) of Sections 173; Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused: 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." 5. The matrix of the proviso to Section 207 of Cr.P.C. is that the Magistrate shall without any delay furnish to the accused a copy of the document mentioned therein, free of cost and he may instead of furnish the accused with copy of any voluminous documents, allow the accused to inspect such document either personally or through his Pleader in Court and the said provisions do not require the Courts to translate any document into Tamil or in any other language and furnish the copies of such translated documents to the accused. 6. In this connection, this Court find it necessary to place reliance upon the following decisions: i. K.Natarajan vs. State by the Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE/ACB/Chennai-6. [2000(2) Law Weekly Criminal 895] and ii. Arputharaj vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, K-1, Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai [1998(1) Law Weekly Criminal 379] In both the decisions cited above, it is observed that a combined reading of Section 207 of Cr.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. 7. On coming to the proviso to Section 207 Cr.P.C. it does not say that the accused is entitled to be furnished with copies of the records translated in Tamil. 8. Obviously the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is well versed in English language. It is not the case of the petitioner that the learned counsel appearing for him is not conversant with English. Besides this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who is conversant with the language of English will also explain the petitioner in Tamil about the ingredients of the charges, which are levelled against him. Therefore, the petitioner need not apprehend that furnishing of copies of the records, documents and final report in English would cause prejudice to him. 9. In K.Natarajans case [2000(2) Law Weekly Criminal 895], the learned single Judge of this Court has held that furnishing of translated copies cannot be equivalent to the furnishing of copies as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. A plain reading of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. would show that translation is not the duty of the Court and furnishing of the copies alone is the prime duty of the Court. 10. 10. In so far as this petition is concerned, it is apparent that the petition is filed in English and not in Tamil. Keeping in view of the above finding, this Courts concluded view is that no purpose is going to be served in keeping protracting the proceedings without allowing the trial of the case to be commenced. Under this circumstance, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered as he is not entitled to be furnished with the copies of the charge sheet translated in Tamil. 11. In the result, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable under law.