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. (Para 3)
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. 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 noncognizable cases. (Para 8)
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 Subsection (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. (Para 12)
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. (Para 15)
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 subsection (2) of Section 465. (Para 16)
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. (Para 17)
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. (Para 20)
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. (Para 21)
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. (Para 22)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 215 SC
[2023 INSC 770]
Central Bureau Of Investigation Vs. Narottam Dhakad & Anr.
Criminal Appeal No. 2592 of 2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018) with Criminal Appeal No.2593 OF 2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10680 of 2022)-Decided on 25-8-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-STPLWeb-215-SC.pdf
