The Supreme Court has held there is no specific provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) which requires the investigating agency to file a charge sheet in the language of the court.
Section 272 of the CrPC, which deals with language of courts, says the State Government may determine what shall be, for purposes of this Code, the language of each Court within the State other than the High Court.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal gave the ruling while allowing the CBI’s appeal challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court order, which asked the probe agency to provide a copy of the charge sheet to two Vyapam scam accused in Hindi.
The Vyapam or Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board scam broke out in 2013, wherein candidates had bribed officials and rigged exams by deploying imposters to write their answer sheets. The probe into the scam that began in 1995 was taken over by the central agency following an order of the Supreme Court in 2015. The racket involved politicians, senior officials and businessmen.
The bench said, “Coming to the issue of the language of the final report/charge sheet under Section 173, there is no specific provision in CrPC which requires the investigating agency/officer to file it in the language of the Court determined in accordance with Section 272 of CrPC. Even if such a requirement is read into Section 173, per se, the proceedings will not be vitiated if the report is not in the language of the Court.”
It said in a given case, if something which CrPC specifically requires to be done in the language of the Court is done in any other language, per se, the proceedings will not be vitiated unless it is established that the omission has resulted in failure of justice.
The bench said while deciding the issue of whether there is a failure of justice, the Court will have to consider whether the objection was raised at the earliest available opportunity.
“Thus, the power of the State Government is to determine for the purposes of CrPC what shall be the language of the Courts within the State other than the High Court. The power under Section 272 is not a power to decide which language shall be used by the investigating agencies or the police for the purposes of maintaining the record of the investigation,” it said.
The bench dealt with relevant provisions of CrPC and said that under Section 207, it is the obligation of the Judicial Magistrate to supply a copy of the charge sheet and other documents to the accused.
It said that similarly, in a case triable by the Court of Sessions, Section 208 of CrPC empowers the judicial officer to provide copies of the statements and documents to the accused including the statements and confessions recorded under the procedural code.
The bench said when a copy of the charge sheet and the documents are supplied to the accused under Section 207 or Section 208 of CrPC, an opportunity is available for the accused to contend that he does not understand the language in which the final report or the statements or documents are written.
In such a scenario, he must raise this objection at the earliest, the top court said, and added, “if the accused is appearing in-person and wants to defend himself without opting for legal aid, perhaps there may be a requirement of supplying a translated version of the charge sheet and documents or the relevant part thereof concerning the said accused to him.” The bench, in its judgement which was pronounced on Friday, said such a situation is also subject to the accused satisfying the court that he is unable to understand the language in which the charge sheet has been submitted.
“When the accused is represented by an advocate who fully understands the language of the final report or charge sheet, there will not be any requirement of furnishing translations to the accused as the advocate can explain the contents of the charge sheet to the accused. If both the accused and his advocate are not conversant with the language in which the charge sheet has been filed, then the question of providing translation may arise,” the bench said.
It said the reasoning behind this is that the accused must get a fair opportunity to defend himself.
“He must know and understand the material against him in the charge sheet. That is the essence of Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India. With the availability of various software and Artificial Intelligence tools for making translations, providing translations will not be that difficult now,” the bench said.
The bench said, however, a charge sheet filed within the period provided either under the CrPC or any other relevant statute in a language other than the language of the Court or the language which the accused does not understand, is not illegal and no one can claim a default bail on that ground.
The bench said, “There is one more aspect of the matter. There are central agencies like the National Investigation Agency, Central Bureau of Investigation, etc. These agencies investigate serious offences or offences having wide ramifications. Obviously, such central agencies, in every case, will not be in a position to file the final report in the language of the concerned Court as determined by Section 272 of CrPC.”
The bench set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court order and upheld the order of the trial court refusing Vyapam scam accused Narottam Dhakad and Sunil Singh, a copy of the charge sheet in Hindi.
Both Dhakad and Singh had claimed they don’t understand the content of the charge sheet filed by the CBI in English.
The trial court had found that both of them were educated, had knowledge of English and even put their signature on court documents in that language.
Comments
0 comment