CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusNAROTTAM DHAKAD & ANR.

                   [2023] 14 S.C.R. 306 : 2023 INSC 770



                              CASE DETAILS
              CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
                                        v.
                     NAROTTAM DHAKAD & ANR.
                     (Criminal Appeal No.2592 of 2023)
                              AUGUST 25, 2023
             [ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
                               HEADNOTES
      Issue for consideration: In cases relating to offences arising out of
the Vyapam Scam, respondents-accused filed applications seeking direction
to supply a Hindi translation of the charge sheet filed by the appellant in
English language. Rejected by Magistrate and Sessions Court. High Court
whether justified in interfering and inter alia holding that Hindi was the
only language of the Criminal Courts in the State of MP and therefore, the
respondents were entitled to seek translation of the charge sheet into the
language of the Court.
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.173 – Language of the final
report/charge sheet, if to be in the language of the Court determined
in accordance with s.272, CrPC:
      Held: 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 s.272 – Even if such a requirement is read into s.173, per
se, the proceedings will not be vitiated if the report is not in the language of
the Court – The test of failure of justice will have to be applied in such a case
as laid down in s.465, CrPC – When a copy of the report and the documents
are supplied to the accused u/s.207 and/or s.208, 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 – But he must
raise this objection at the earliest – In such a case, if the accused is appearing
in person and wants to defend himself without opting for legal aid, 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
                                      306
 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. NAROTTAM                               307
               DHAKAD & ANR.

him – It is, however, subject to the accused satisfying the Court that he is
unable to understand the language in which the charge sheet is submitted –
On facts, it cannot be said that non-supply of translation of the charge sheet
and other documents to the accused in both appeals will occasion failure of
justice – Impugned orders set aside. [Paras 18, 19 and 22]
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Charge sheet filed in a
language other than the language of the Court or the language which
the accused does not understand, if illegal:
      Held: No – A charge sheet filed within the period provided either
u/s.167, 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. [Para 19]
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.272 – Power under:
      Held: s.272 deals with only the language of the Courts under CrPC
– 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 – Power u/s.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 – Wherever the legislature
intended, there is a specific provision incorporated requiring the Court to
mandatorily use the language of the Court in the proceedings – There is no
such requirement laid down in respect of the report/charge sheet u/s.173.
[Paras 12 and 15]
      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.465 – Test of the failure of
justice – Error, omission, or irregularity in the trial:
       Held: s.465 incorporates the same test of the failure of justice as s.464
while dealing with any error, omission, or irregularity in the proceedings
– While deciding whether there is a failure of justice occasioned due to
error, omission, or irregularity in the trial, the Court is required to consider
the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an
earlier stage in the proceedings – There is a specific provision to that effect
under sub-section (2) of s.465 – Thus, 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 – While
308          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 14 S.C.R.


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. [Paras 16 and 17]
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.211(6), 215, 228(2), 240,
272, 265, 277(b), 279, 281, 354, 353 – Language of the Court – Relevant
provisions of CrPC having bearing on the issue of – Summarised. [Para 14]
       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
2592 of 2023.
    From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2017 of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in MCRC No.20941 of 2017.
      With
      Criminal Appeal No. 2593 of 2023
      Appearances:
    Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Padmesh Mishra,
Navanjay Mahapatra, Kartik Dey, Suraj Mishra, Abhishek Singh, Arvind
Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Saurabh Mishra, AAG, Piyush Lakhanpal, Avinash Kr. Lakhanpal,
Yashraj Singh Bundela, Pawan, Advs. for the Respondents.

       JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

                              JUDGMENT

      ABHAY S. OKA, J.
      1. Leave granted.
      FACTUAL ASPECTS
      2. Under Section 272 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short ‘CrPC’), the State Government has the power to determine what shall
be, for the purposes of CrPC, the language of each Court within a particular
State other than the High Court. As provided in Section 6 of CrPC, there
 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. NAROTTAM                             309
        DHAKAD & ANR. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

are various Courts in a State. The said Courts are the Courts of the Session,
Judicial Magistrates of the First Class, Metropolitan Magistrates, Judicial
Magistrates of the Second Class, and Executive Magistrates.
      3. In these two appeals, we are dealing with charge sheets filed by the
appellant - Central Bureau of Investigation, in relation to offences arising
out of the VYAPAM Scam in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Charge sheets
have been filed for various offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 467 and
471 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Examinations
Act, 1937. The first respondent in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No. 5525 of 2018 filed an application before the learned Judicial
Magistrate seeking a direction to supply a Hindi translation of the charge
sheet filed by the appellant in English language. The contention of the first
respondent accused was that he was unable to understand the charge sheet
filed in English language. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that the first
respondent was an educated person, having knowledge of English. Learned
Judge pointed out that the offence related to fraud in the examination. The
allegation is that after the first respondent received admit card, some other
person took the examination by impersonating him. The learned Magistrate
observed that the vakalatnama filed by the first respondent was in English
and the first respondent has also signed in English. It was further held that
the Advocate representing the first respondent had sound knowledge of the
English language. Therefore, the learned Magistrate proceeded to reject the
prayer made by the first respondent. The order of the learned Magistrate
has been confirmed by the Sessions Court in revision. However, the High
Court interfered by holding that Hindi was the only language of the Criminal
Courts in the State and therefore, the first respondent was entitled to seek a
translation of the charge sheet into the language of the Court.
      4. The first respondent in Criminal Appeal, arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No. 10680 of 2022, is also an accused in the same case. He also made a
similar application before the learned Magistrate which was rejected. The
first respondent challenged the said order before the High Court. A Division
Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment held that when a charge
sheet was filed in the language unknown to the accused, he was entitled to
translation of the charge sheet in the language which he understands.
310          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 14 S.C.R.


      5. The appellant - the Central Bureau of Investigation has challenged
both the impugned orders.
      SUBMISSIONS
      6. The submission of the appellant in both cases is that the accused were
highly educated and had knowledge of the English language. Therefore, there
is no prejudice to the accused if the charge sheet was in English language. It
was also pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that
the charge sheets in VYAPAM Scam cases are very bulky and translation of
the charge sheets into Hindi is a very time-consuming and costly process.
      7. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the accused
is that in the exercise of powers under Section 272 of CrPC, the State
Government has declared Hindi as the only language of the Criminal Courts
in the State. Their submission is that the language Hindi is for the purposes
of the Code and therefore, charge sheets filed under Section 173 of CrPC
ought to be filed in the language of the Court. Therefore, both the accused
supported the view taken by the High Court. The learned counsel appearing
for the accused also submitted that in a given case if the accused is not
conversant with the language in which the charge sheet has been filed, he
will not be able to defend himself properly as he will not be in a position
to understand the statements recorded by the police and other documents
collected during investigation.
      OUR VIEW
      8. The Government of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of power under
Section 272 of CrPC issued a notification dated 28th March 1974, declared
Hindi to be the language of each Court in the State except the High Court.
If we consider the scheme of CrPC, it regulates not only the procedure
before the Criminal Courts but also the procedure to be followed by the
police and other investigating agencies. Chapter V deals with the arrest of
persons. Chapter VI deals with processes to be issued for compelling the
appearance of the accused before the Court. Chapter VII deals with processes
to be issued to compel the production of things before the Court. Chapter
VIII contains provisions regarding security for keeping the peace and for
good behaviour. The powers under the said Chapter are to be exercised by
the Courts under the CrPC or an Executive Magistrate, as the case may be.
 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. NAROTTAM                              311
        DHAKAD & ANR. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

Chapter X contains the steps to be taken for the maintenance of public order
and tranquillity. Chapter IX contains Section 125 which confers powers
on the Courts of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class to order payment of
maintenance to wives, children and parents. Chapter XI deals with the
preventive action of the police. Chapter XII contains elaborate provisions
regarding the registration of First Information Reports, and the investigation
of offences in cognizable or non-cognizable cases.
      9. Section 173 forms part of Chapter XII which contains provisions
regarding a police report which is popularly known as a charge sheet. We
are, therefore, reproducing Section 173 of CrPC which reads thus:
           “173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.—
           (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed
           without unnecessary delay.
           (1A) The investigation in relation to an offence under sections
           376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB or 376E
           of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be completed within
           two months from the date on which the information was recorded
           by the officer in charge of the police station.
           (2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the
           police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take
           cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form
           prescribed by the State Government, stating—
           (a) the names of the parties;
           (b) the nature of the information;
           (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with
           the circumstances of the case;
           (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and,
           if so, by whom;
           (e) whether the accused has been arrested;
           (f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether
           with or without sureties;
           (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.
312     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 14 S.C.R.


      (h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has
      been attached where investigation relates to an offence under
      sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB]
      or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
      (ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may
      be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him,
      to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the
      commission of the offence was first given.
      (3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under
      section 158, the report shall, in any case in which the State
      Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted
      through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the
      Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to
      make further investigation.
      (4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this
      section that the accused has been released on his bond, the
      Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond
      or otherwise as he thinks fit.
      (5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section
      170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate
      along with the report—
      (a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the
      prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to
      the Magistrate during investigation;
      (b) the statements recorded under section 161 of all the
      persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its
      witnesses.
      (6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such
      statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the proceedings
      or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests
      of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall
      indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting
      the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted
      to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.
 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. NAROTTAM                                 313
        DHAKAD & ANR. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

            (7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it
            convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all
            or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5).
            (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further
            investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-
            section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where
            upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station
            obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to
            the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence
            in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2)
            to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report
            or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under
            sub-section (2).”
                                                           (emphasis supplied)
      10. As can be seen from sub-section (2) of Section 173, after
completion of the investigation, the officer in charge of the police station is
under an obligation to submit a report to the learned Magistrate in the form
prescribed by the State Government, giving particulars as mentioned in sub-
section (2). Sub-section (5) is applicable in a case governing Section 170.
It applies when it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that
there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground justifying the forwarding
of the accused to the learned Magistrate. In such a case, along with the
report, the officer in charge of the police station is bound to forward copies
of the statements recorded under Section 161 of all the persons whom the
prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses. It also enjoins the officer
in charge of the police station to forward all the documents or relevant
extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely upon other than
those already sent to the Magistrate during the investigation. Sub-section (6)
of Section 173 confers power on the learned Magistrate to exclude certain
parts of the material produced along with the charge sheet while supplying
copies thereof to the accused.
      11. Section 173 will have to be read with Section 207 which mandates
that after cognizance is taken of the offence by the learned Magistrate on a
case instituted on a police report, it is the obligation of the learned Magistrate
to furnish free of cost, without any delay, copies of the police report, first
314           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 14 S.C.R.


information report, statements recorded under sub-section (3) of Section 161
of CrPC except the portion in respect of which there is an order passed by
the learned Magistrate by invoking powers under sub-section (6) of Section
173, confessions and statements recorded under Section 164 and copies of
the documents or relevant extracts forwarded along with the police report
in accordance with sub-section (5) of Section 173. When the statements of
the witnesses or documents covered by sub-section (5) of Section 173 are
very bulky, the learned Magistrate has the discretion to allow the accused
and his advocate to inspect the said documents instead of providing copies
thereof. It is pertinent to note that there is no provision either in Chapter XII
or Chapter XVI of CrPC which makes it obligatory to file charge sheets/
reports in the language of the Court.
      12. Interestingly, the provision regarding the language of Courts in
the form of Section 272 finds a place in Chapter XXIII having the heading
“Evidence in inquiries and Trials”. The provision is incorporated under the
sub-heading “A.—Mode of taking and recording evidence”. Section 272
reads thus:
      “272. Language of Courts.—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.”
      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. At
the highest, for that purpose, the provisions regarding the law governing the
Official Language of the State may apply subject to the provisions contained
in such enactment. In a given case, while prescribing a form as required by
Sub-section (2) of Section 173, the State Government may provide that the
charge sheet must be filed in the official language of the State. Therefore,
Section 272 deals with only the language of the Courts under CrPC.
      13. It is interesting to note that wherever legislature intended, specific
provisions have been made incorporating the requirement using the language
of the Court. Some of these provisions also deal with situations when the
accused is unable to understand the language of the Court
 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. NAROTTAM                             315
        DHAKAD & ANR. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

     14. We are giving a summary of the relevant provisions of CrPC which
have some bearing on the issue of the language of the Court:
     a.   Sub-section (6) of Section 211 provides that the charge shall
          be written in the language of the Court. However, Section 215
          provides that no error in the charge shall be regarded at any stage
          of the case as material unless the accused was in fact misled due
          to error or omission and it has occasioned a failure of justice.
          Therefore, in a given case, even if the charge is not framed in
          the language of the Court, the omission to frame the charge in
          the language of the Court shall not be material unless it is shown
          that the accused was misled and it resulted in failure of justice.
     b.   Section 228 forms part of Chapter XVIII, which deals with
          trial before a Court of Sessions. Sub-section (2) of Section 228
          mandates that the Court must read over and explain the charge
          to the accused. It follows that if the accused does not understand
          the language in which the charge is framed, the Court will have to
          explain the charge to him in the language which he understands.
     c.   Section 240 which forms part of Chapter XVIII dealing with the
          trial of warrant cases by Magistrates provides that the charge shall
          be framed in writing and the learned Magistrate shall read over
          and explain the charge to the accused. Though the Section does
          not make it mandatory, normally, the charge will be framed in
          the language of the Court determined in accordance with Section
          272 of CrPC. Therefore, if the accused is not conversant with
          the language in which the charge is framed, it is the duty of the
          Magistrate to explain the charge to the accused in a language
          which he understands.
     d.   If we compare provisions of Chapters XVIII, XIX, XX, and XXI
          which deal with sessions triable cases, warrant triable cases,
          summons triable cases, and summary trials, either there is a
          requirement of explaining the charge to the accused, or there
          is a requirement of stating the particulars of the offence to the
          accused. These requirements can be fulfilled only by explaining
          to the accused in the language which he understands.
316          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 14 S.C.R.


      e.   Only in the case of summary trials under Chapter XXI, there is
           a specific provision under Section 265 that the record of the case
           shall be in the language of the Court.
      f.   Section 277 (b) permits a witness to give evidence in any other
           language which is not the language of the Court. It lays down
           the procedure for recording such evidence.
      g.   There is a salutatory provision in the form of Section 279 under
           Chapter XXIII dealing with evidence in inquiries and trials.
           Section 279 reads thus:
                “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.”
           Thus, where evidence is recorded in the language of the Court
           which is not understood by the accused or his pleader, there is
           an obligation on the part of the Court to explain the evidence to
           the accused or his lawyer, as the case may be.
      h.   Section 281 provides that if the examination of the accused
           made by the Court is reduced into writing in a language which
           the accused does not understand, the statement is required to be
           interpreted to him in a language which he understands and after
           such interpretation is made, the accused has the liberty to explain
           and add to his answers.
      i.   Under Section 354, it is provided that judgment in every trial of
           a Criminal Court must be written in the language of the Court.
 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. NAROTTAM                               317
        DHAKAD & ANR. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

           Either in Section 353 or 354, there is no provision which requires
           the Court to interpret the judgment to the accused even if the
           accused does not understand the language of the Court.
      15. The conclusion which can be drawn from the provisions of CrPC
and in particular the provisions referred to above is that wherever the
legislature intended, there is a specific provision incorporated requiring
the Court to mandatorily use the language of the Court in the proceedings.
There is no such requirement laid down in respect of the report/charge sheet
under Section 173 of CrPC.
      16. There are two provisions in CrPC which deal with the effect of error,
omission, or irregularity in the proceedings of the trial of a criminal case.
The first is Section 464 which deals with the effect of omission to frame, or
absence of, or error in, charge. It lays down that only on the ground of such
omission, absence, or error, the ultimate finding, sentence or order will not
be invalid unless a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
Section 465 incorporates the same test of the failure of justice while dealing
with any error, omission, or irregularity in the proceedings. While deciding
whether there is a failure of justice occasioned due to error, omission, or
irregularity in the trial, the Court is required to consider the fact whether
the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the
proceedings. There is a specific provision to that effect under sub-section
(2) of Section 465.
      17. Therefore, 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. 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.
     18. Now, 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
318          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 14 S.C.R.


vitiated if the report is not in the language of the Court. The test of failure
of justice will have to be applied in such a case as laid down in Section
465 of CrPC.
      19. Under Section 207, it is the obligation of the learned Judicial
Magistrate to supply a copy of the report and other documents as provided
in Section 207 to the accused. In a case triable by the Court of Sessions,
Section 208 provides for the learned Magistrate to provide copies of the
statements and documents to the accused including the statements and
confessions recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. When a copy of the report
and the documents are supplied to the accused under Section 207 and/or
Section 208, 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. But he must raise this objection at the earliest.
In such a case, 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. It is, however,
subject to the accused satisfying the Court that he is unable to understand
the language in which the charge sheet is 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 reason 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 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. In the cases mentioned aforesaid,
the Courts can always direct the prosecution to provide a translated version
of the charge sheet. But we must hasten to add that a charge sheet filed within
the period provided either under Section 167 of 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.
 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. NAROTTAM                               319
        DHAKAD & ANR. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

      20. 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.
      21. Now, coming to the facts of the case, in Criminal Appeal arising
out of SLP (Crl.) 5525 of 2018, a finding of fact was recorded by the trial
court that the respondent is an educated person. The offence relates to
an examination for which one of the eligibility conditions was having a
knowledge of the English language. Moreover, it was found that the advocate
engaged by him also knows the English language. Coming to the Criminal
Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) 10680 of 2022, the trial court has recorded
a finding that the first respondent-accused was a science graduate having
knowledge of the English language. Moreover, his advocate was conversant
with the English language.
     22. Hence, in the facts of the cases in hand, it cannot be said that a
non-supply of translation of the charge sheet and other documents to the
accused in both appeals will occasion a failure of justice.
      23. Hence, the appeals succeed and subject to what is held in the earlier
part of the judgment, the impugned orders are set aside. There will be no
order as to costs. The Trial Court shall expeditiously proceed with the trial.




Headnotes prepared by:                                          Appeals allowed.
Divya Pandey