Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 701 (MP)

Thameem Ansari v. State of M. P.

2019-09-30

RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY

body2019
ORDER 1. This criminal revision has been filed under section 397/401 of CrPC against the order dated 19.7.2019 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar in criminal case No. RCT/1648/2017 registered for the offence punishable under section 2, 9, 39, 44, 48A, 49B, 51 and 52 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") whereby learned CJM rejected applicant's prayer demanding the translated English copy of complaint and the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded by the trial Court, which are in Hindi and applicant does not know Hindi, but only Tamil and English. 2. Brief facts which are relevant for disposal of this revision are that the applicant is facing trial in Criminal Case No. 1648/2017 pending before CJM, Sagar. During trial, the trial Court recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses in Hindi. On that, the applicant made a prayer that he does not know Hindi, and understands only Tamil and English. So the copy of the complaint and the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded by the trial Court which are in Hindi should be translated into English and translated copy be given to the applicant. This was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar. Being aggrieved from that order, the applicant filed the present revision before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is facing trial in Criminal Case No. 1648/2017 pending before CJM, Sagar, arising from the complaint filed by the forest officials and registered for the offences punishable under section 2, 9, 39, 44, 48A, 49B, 51 and 52 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Applicant is a resident of Tamil Nadu and does not know Hindi, while the complaint filed by the forest officials and the documents filed along with them are in Hindi. Even the statement of the prosecution witness recorded by the trial Court is also in Hindi. Since the applicant does not know Hindi, even his lawyer who will come from Chennai to defend the applicant's case does not know Hindi. So, it is obligatory on the trial Court to provide English translation of the complaint, documents filed along with the complaint and the statement of a prosecution witness recorded by the trial Court at the stage of before charge evidence so that the applicant can defend his case properly. The learned trial Court committed mistake in rejecting applicant's application. 4. So, it is obligatory on the trial Court to provide English translation of the complaint, documents filed along with the complaint and the statement of a prosecution witness recorded by the trial Court at the stage of before charge evidence so that the applicant can defend his case properly. The learned trial Court committed mistake in rejecting applicant's application. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that lawyer of the applicant is very well versed with Hindi. So there is no need to provide English translation of the complaint, documents filed along with the complaint and the statement of prosecution witness which has been recorded by the trial Court in Hindi to the applicant and prayed for rejection of the application. 5. It appears from the record that forest officials filed a complaint against the applicant on 5.12.2017. Thereafter applicant filed bail applications up to the apex Court and thereafter for the first time on 19.1.2019 he filed the application stating that he did not know Hindi so English translation of the complaint, documents filed along with the complaint and the statement of prosecution witness by the trial Court be made available to him. Even on 11.4.2019 he filed an application under section 56 of the Act averring that from the complaint, no offence is made out against him and he should be discharged. This shows that no prejudice is caused to the applicant by not providing him English translation of complaint and documents filed along with the complaint. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohd. Aslam and anr. v. State of M.P. I.L.R. (2010) M.P., 2373 held that in Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 265, Official Language Act, M.P. 1957 section 3 the accused cannot be held prejudiced by filing of charge sheet and other documents in English language and not providing Hindi Translation where he is well represented by the counsel, who is well versed in English. It is not the case of the applicant that his local lawyer who is appearing before trial Court since the filing of the complaint does not know Hindi. So learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in rejecting applicant's prayer to provide him English translation of complaint and documents filed along with the complaint which is in Hindi. It is not the case of the applicant that his local lawyer who is appearing before trial Court since the filing of the complaint does not know Hindi. So learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in rejecting applicant's prayer to provide him English translation of complaint and documents filed along with the complaint which is in Hindi. But as far as the prayer of the applicant to provide him English translation of the statement of the prosecution witness which was recorded by the trial Court before charge evidence is concerned. Section 279 of CrPC reads as under : "279. Interpretation of evidence to accused or his pleader. (1) Whenever any evidence is given in a language not understood by the accused, and he is present in Court in person, it shall be interpreted to him in open Court in a language understood by him. (2) If he appears by pleader and the evidence is given in a language other than the language of the Court, and not understood by the pleader, it shall be interpreted to such pleader in that language. (3) When documents are put for the purpose of formal proof, it shall be in the discretion of the Court to interpret as much thereof as appears necessary." 6. From a bare perusal of provision of section 279 of CrPC, it is abundantly clear that the evidence recorded in the language not understood by the accused should be interpreted to him in open Court in a language understood by him. In the instant case, the applicant/accused stated that he does not know Hindi and only understood English and Tamil. There is no controversy over the said fact because neither learned trial Court in its order nor prosecution in his reply filed by it before the trial Court mentioned that applicant knows Hindi. Therefore to ensure a fair trial to the accused as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India it is obligatory on the trial Court that the statement recorded by it in the Hindi and not understood by the accused, should be interpreted to him in open Court in the language understood by him. Trial Court on the request of co-accused Mannivarn vide order dated 1.3.2019 even directed that to inform about the prosecution witnesses in the English language to co-accused Mannivarn since he did not know Hindi but only English and Tamil. Trial Court on the request of co-accused Mannivarn vide order dated 1.3.2019 even directed that to inform about the prosecution witnesses in the English language to co-accused Mannivarn since he did not know Hindi but only English and Tamil. So this criminal revision is partly allowed and it is directed, that the trial Court with the help of prosecution give the English translation of the statement of the prosecution witness recorded by it, at the stage of before charge evidence. It is further directed that at the time of recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses also an interpreter be made available to the applicant who shall interpret to him the statement of the witness in the English language. This Criminal Revision is disposed of accordingly.