1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 127 OF 2001 Govind Ganesh @ Bhai Tilawe .. Petitioner V/s 1. R.P. Mirokhe 2. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Mr. Rajesh S. Datar for the petitioner. Mr. Y.S. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 27TH NOVEMBER 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8th January 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner against an order of the Magistrate dated 29th December 2000. 2. The petitioner is an original complainant who had filed a private 2 complaint (Criminal Case No.206 of 1986) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalyan. After 14 long years, the complainant made an application to the Magistrate on 27th September 2000 stating that the entire proceedings of the trial should be conducted in Marathi in view of a notification dated 21st July 1988 issued by the Government of Maharashtra under section 272 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Cr. P.C.”). By an order dated 29th December 2000, the learned Magistrate directed that the entire proceedings of the trial would be conducted in Marathi. He however issued a further direction that since the case was a warrant triable, the evidence i.e. depositions of witnesses would, in addition to being recorded in Marathi, be translated in English and such translation be kept on record in view of the directions issued by the High Court in the Criminal Manual. Aggrieved by this direction, the petitioner filed a revision application in the Court of Sessions at Kalyan. By an order dated 8th January 2001, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan rejected the revision application. That order is impugned by this petition. 3. Section 272 of the Cr. P.C. says that the State Government may determine what would be, for the purpose of the Cr. P.C., the language of each (criminal) court within the State other than the High Court. In 3 pursuance of the power to determine the language of the Criminal Courts, the State Government passed an order on 21st July 1998 (published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette dated 21st July 1998 - page 4) which reads as under:- “ In exercise of the powers conferred by section 272 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (II of 1974), in its application to the State of Maharashtra; and in supersession of all previous notifications issued in this behalf, the Government of Maharashtra, hereby with effect from the 21 st day of July 1998, determines Marathi language to be the language of all Criminal Courts in the State other than the High Court except for the purposes specified in the Schedule hereto. Schedule (1) .... (2) .... (3) Paper Books in Appeals and Revisions in the District Court and the High Court. (4) Proceedings (both judicial and administrative) that are required to be submitted to the High Court.” 4 (5) to (9) ........ (not typed as not relevant for this case) From the order of the State Government, it is clear that except in respect of the matters mentioned in the Schedule to the order, the language of the criminal court would be Marathi. Undoubtedly, therefore, the learned Magistrate was required to record the evidence of the parties in Marathi. However, since the case was a warrant triable the Magistrate, in view of the directions issued by the High Court and the Criminal Manual, has directed that he would simultaneously translate the Marathi deposition into English and keep the translation also on record. This was necessary because in case of a revision application to the District Court or the High Court, the paper-book has to be in English. In view of clause 3 of the Schedule, paper-books in Appeals and Revisions to the District Court and High Court have to be in English. The order passed by the Magistrate therefore was in no way exceptional. The petitioner cannot have a grievance if the Magistrate apart from recording the evidence in Marathi also keeps on record its English translation. 4. There is one more reason why the petition must fail. Clause 3 of the Schedule to the Government Order dated 21 st July 1998 says that 5 the paper-book in revision applications and appeals to the District Court and the High Court are excepted from the order. Therefore, paper-books have to be in English. The revision application made to the District Court forms a part of the paper-book to be filed in the District Court. The revision application cannot, therefore, be in Marathi as it is a part of the paper-book. The revision application to the District Court was written in Marathi and therefore was not in the language of the court and was liable to be rejected on that ground alone. Though the learned Sessions Judge has not dismissed the revision application on merits, this is an additional ground for sustaining the order of the Sessions Court. 5. For these reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)