Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(i) MANU/TN/0077/1988 (Arputharaj ..vs.. State) wherein it is observed as follows:-

“9. It follows from the above decisions that if the statements were recorded in the language of the witnesses then furnishing of translation of those statements will not amount to furnishing copies of the statement as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. In short furnishing of translation copies cannot be equivalent to the furnishing of copies as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. A plain https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and reading of section 207 of Cr.P.C. will show that translation is not the duty of the court and only furnishing of the copies is the duty of the court. In the present case no prejudice was caused to the petitioner/A4 since it is not stated nowhere in the affidavit of the petitioner that his advocate did not know English and so he was not able to translate such of these documents in English in to Tamil to the petitioner/A4. ”

Therefore, the Petitioner need not apprehend that furnishing of copies of the records, documents and final report in English would cause prejudice to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and him.

9. In K. Natarajan's case 2000 (2) LWC 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 Code of Criminal Procedure A plain reading of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure would show that translation is not the duty of the Court and furnishing of the copies alone is the prime duty of the Court.

4. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

5. The issue here is whether the accused / petitioner is entitled for the copies of the documents supplied to him under section 207 Cr.P.C in Telugu language, which is his mother tongue, on the ground that he does not know how to read or write Tamil. Section 207 Cr.P.C reads as follows:-

207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents:-

11. None of the order produced by the learned counsel for the accused discussed the case situation where there was a direction to furnish translated version of copy of the documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. in mother tongue of the accused and the entitlement of the accused for the translated version as a matter of right. We have seen from the order reported in MANU/TN/0957/2000 (K.Natarajan ..vs.. State) (cited supra) that if accused belonging to various States speaking various languages tried in a particular case, it is not possible to furnish copies of the documents relied by the prosecution under Section 207 Cr.P.C. in their respective mother tongue. Some accused are literate and some accused are illiterate. Almost and always the accused are defended by Advocate. Advocates know both the languages spoken in the State of Tamil Nadu ie., English and Tamil and they assist the accused in understanding the case of prosecution, the statement of witnesses and other necessary details concerning the case. Then the accused give suitable instructions to the Advocate for defending them. Thus, this Court is of the view that the accused is not entitled to claim as a matter of right the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and translated version of copies furnished under Section 207 Cr.P.C. in the mother tongue of the accused.