/2023 INSC 0770/
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2592 OF 2023
(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018)
Central Bureau of Investigation                … Appellant
versus
Narottam Dhakad & Anr. … Respondents
with 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2593 OF 2023
(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10680 of 2022)
Central Bureau of Investigation               … Appellant
versus
Sunil Singh & Anr. … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
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
SLP (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018 etc .  Page  1  of  192023INSC770

the  High   Court.     As  provided   in   Section   6  of   CrPC,  there  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
SLP (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018 etc .  Page  2  of  19

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. 
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
SLP (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018 etc .  Page  3  of  19

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 time­consuming 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
28 th
  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
SLP (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018 etc .  Page  4  of  19

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. 
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,
SLP (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018 etc .  Page  5  of  19

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.
(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,
SLP (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018 etc .  Page  6  of  19

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 subject­matter of the proceedings or that
its disclosure to the accused is not essential
in the interests of justice and is inexpedient
SLP (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018 etc .  Page  7  of  19

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.
(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 sub­section   (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 sub­section   (2). ”
(emphasis supplied)
10. As can be seen from sub­section (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   sub­section
(2).   Sub­section (5) is applicable in a case governing Section
170. It applies when it appears to the officer in charge of the
SLP (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018 etc .  Page  8  of  19

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 information
report,   statements   recorded   under   sub­section   (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   sub­section   (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   sub­section   (5)   of   Section
173.     When   the   statements   of   the   witnesses   or   documents
SLP (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018 etc .  Page  9  of  19

covered by  sub­section  (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   sub­heading   “ 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   Sub­section   (2)
SLP (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018 etc .  Page  10  of  19

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
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. Sub­section   (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. 
SLP (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018 etc .  Page  11  of  19

b. Section 228 forms part of Chapter XVIII, which deals
with trial before a Court of Sessions.  Sub­section (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
SLP (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018 etc .  Page  12  of  19

to   the   accused.   These   requirements   can   be   fulfilled
only   by   explaining   to   the   accused   in   the   language
which he understands.  
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. 
SLP (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018 etc .  Page  13  of  19

(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.   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. 
SLP (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018 etc .  Page  14  of  19

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   sub­section   (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
SLP (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018 etc .  Page  15  of  19

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   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
SLP (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018 etc .  Page  16  of  19

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
SLP (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018 etc .  Page  17  of  19

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. 
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
respondent­accused 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 non­supply of translation of the charge sheet and
other documents to the accused in both appeals will occasion
a failure of justice.
SLP (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018 etc .  Page  18  of  19

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. 
….…………………….J.
         (Abhay S. Oka)
…..…………………...J.
         (Rajesh Bindal)
New Delhi;
August 25, 2023.
SLP (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018 etc .  Page  19  of  19