CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus NAROTTAM DHAKAD & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 306 · Decided: 25-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 306 : 2023 INSC 770
306
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 off ences arising out of 
the Vyapam Scam, respondents-accused fi led applications seeking direction 
to supply a Hindi translation of the charge sheet fi led by the appellant in 
English language. Rejected by Magistrate and Sessions Court. High Court 
whether justifi ed 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 fi nal 
report/charge sheet, if to be in the language of the Court determined 
in accordance with s.272, CrPC:
Held: There is no specifi c provision in CrPC which requires the 
investigating agency/offi  cer to fi le 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 fi nal 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 
307
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 fi led 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 fi led 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 specifi c 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 specifi c provision to that eff ect 
under sub -section (2) of s.465 – Thus, in a given case, if something which 
CrPC specifi cally 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 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. NAROTTAM 
DHAKAD & ANR.
308 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.