The Supreme Court recently observed that there is no specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) requiring the investigating agency to file a chargesheet under Section 173 in the language of the court determined under Section 272 of the CrPC [Central Bureau of Investigation versus Narottam Dhakad & Anr].

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal further said that a translated copy of the chargesheet needs to be supplied only if the accused and his lawyer are not conversant with the language used in the charge sheet.

“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,” it added.

Pertinently, the Court said that filing of chargesheet in a language which the accused does not understand, will not be a ground to claim default bail.

“We must hasten to add that a chargesheet filed within the period provided under Section 167 CrPC 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 Court underlined.

They said that when a copy of the report 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 doesn’t understand the language in which they 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 to supply a translated version of the charge sheet and documents or the relevant part thereof concerning the said accused to him,” said the Court.

The Bench, however, also said that the same is subject to the accused satisfying the court that he is unable to understand the language in which the charge sheet is submitted. There wouldn’t be such a requirement when the accused is represented by an advocate who fully understands the language, the Court said. 

It also said that where evidence is recorded in the language of the court that 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.

The Court said that 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,” the apex court said.

Delving more into the matter, the Court said there are central agencies like the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) that 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,” it added.

It also said that power under Section 272 CrPC 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,” the Court said.

The Court was dealing with appeals against a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which held that Hindi was the only language of the criminal courts in the State and therefore, the accused in the VYAPAM Scam case were entitled to seek a translation of the charge sheet into the language of the court i.e. Hindi. The decision was challenged by the CBI before the apex court.

Disagreeing with the High Court decision, the bench headed by Justice Oka said that a finding of fact was recorded by the trial court that the accused, who had sought the translated copy of the chargesheet in Hindi, is an educated man. Moreover, it was found that the advocate engaged by him also knows English.

Regarding the other accused, the apex court noted that the trial court had recorded a finding that he was a science graduate having knowledge of English.

“Moreover, his advocate was conversant with the English language,” it added.

While setting aside the orders of the High Court, the bench said it cannot be said that a non­-supply of translation of the chargesheet and other documents to the accused in both appeals will result in failure of justice.