CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus NAROTTAM DHAKAD & ANR.
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 306, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[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 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
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. [Paras 16 and 17]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.211(6), 215, 228(2), 240, 
272, 265, 277(b), 279, 281, 354, 353 – Language of the Court – Relevant 
provisions of CrPC having bearing on the issue of – Summarised. [Para 14]
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
2592 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2017 of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in MCRC No.20941 of 2017.
With
Criminal Appeal No. 2593 of 2023
Appearances:
Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Padmesh Mishra, 
Navanjay Mahapatra, Kartik Dey, Suraj Mishra, Abhishek Singh, Arvind 
Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Saurabh Mishra, AAG, Piyush Lakhanpal, Avinash Kr. Lakhanpal, 
Yashraj Singh Bundela, Pawan, Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
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 the High Court. As provided in Section 6 of CrPC, there
309
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 ﬁ led by the 
appellant - Central Bureau of Investigation, in relation to oﬀ ences arising 
out of the VYAPAM Scam in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Charge sheets 
have been ﬁ led for various oﬀ ences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 467 and 
471 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Examinations 
Act, 1937. The ﬁ rst respondent in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP 
(Crl.) No. 5525 of 2018 ﬁ led an application before the learned Judicial 
Magistrate seeking a direction to supply a Hindi translation of the charge 
sheet ﬁ led by the appellant in English language. The contention of the ﬁ rst 
respondent accused was that he was unable to understand the charge sheet 
ﬁ led in English language. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that the ﬁ rst 
respondent was an educated person, having knowledge of English. Learned 
Judge pointed out that the oﬀ ence related to fraud in the examination. The 
allegation is that after the ﬁ rst respondent received admit card, some other 
person took the examination by impersonating him. The learned Magistrate 
observed that the vakalatnama ﬁ led by the ﬁ rst respondent was in English 
and the ﬁ rst respondent has also signed in English. It was further held
that 
the Advocate representing the ﬁ rst respondent had sound knowledge of the 
English language. Therefore, the learned Magistrate proceeded to reject the 
prayer made by the ﬁ rst respondent. The order of the learned Magistrate 
has been conﬁ rmed 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 ﬁ rst respondent was entitled to seek a 
translation of the charge sheet into the language of the Court.
4. The ﬁ rst 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 
ﬁ rst 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 ﬁ led in the language unknown to the accused, he was entitled to 
translation of the charge sheet in the language which he understands. 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. NAROTTAM 
DHAKAD & ANR. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]
310 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
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 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 time-consuming 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 ﬁ led under Section 173 of CrPC 
ought to be ﬁ led 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 ﬁ led, 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 notiﬁ cation dated 28th 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 
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.
311
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 oﬀ ences in cognizable or non-cognizable 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 oﬃ  cer on completion of investigation.—
(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed 
without unnecessary delay.
(1A) The investigation in relation to an oﬀ ence under sections 
376, 376A, 376AB, 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 oﬃ  cer in charge of the police station.
(2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the oﬃ  cer in charge of the 
police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take 
cognizance of the oﬀ ence 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 oﬀ ence 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.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. NAROTTAM 
DHAKAD & ANR. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]
312 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
(h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has 
been attached where investigation relates to an oﬀ ence under 
sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB] 
or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(ii) The oﬃ  cer shall also communicate, in such manner as may 
be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, 
to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the 
commission of the oﬀ ence was ﬁ rst given.
(3) Where a superior oﬃ  cer 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 oﬃ  cer, and he may, pending the orders of the 
Magistrate, direct the oﬃ  cer 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 ﬁ t.
(5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 
170 applies, the police oﬃ  cer 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 oﬃ  cer is of opinion that any part of any such 
statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the proceedings 
or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests 
of justice and is inexpedient 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.
313
(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 sub-section (5).
(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further 
investigation in respect of an oﬀ ence after a report under sub-
section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where 
upon such investigation, the oﬃ  cer 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 
sub-section (2).”
(emphasis supplied)
10. As can be seen from sub-section (2) of Section 173, after 
completion of the investigation, the oﬃ  cer 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 sub-
section (2). Sub-section (5) is applicable in a case governing Section 170. 
It applies when it appears to the oﬃ  cer in charge of the police station that 
there is suﬃ  cient evidence or reasonable ground justifying the forwarding 
of the accused to the learned Magistrate. In such a case, along with the 
report, the oﬃ  cer 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 oﬃ  cer 
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 oﬀ ence 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, ﬁ rst 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. NAROTTAM 
DHAKAD & ANR. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]
314 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
information report, statements recorded under sub-section (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 sub-section (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 sub-section (5) of Section 173. When the statements of 
the witnesses or documents covered by sub-section (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 ﬁ le charge sheets/
reports in the language of the Court. 
12. Interestingly, the provision regarding the language of Courts in 
the form of Section 272 ﬁ nds a place in Chapter XXIII having the heading 
“Evidence in inquiries and Trials”. The provision is incorporated under the 
sub-heading “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 
Oﬃ  cial 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 
Sub-section (2) of Section 173, the State Government may provide that the 
charge sheet must be ﬁ led in the oﬃ  cial 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, speciﬁ c 
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
315
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.  
Sub-section (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. 
b.  
Section 228 forms part of Chapter XVIII, which deals with 
trial before a Court of Sessions. Sub-section (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 oﬀ ence to the 
accused. These requirements can be fulﬁ lled only by explaining 
to the accused in the language which he understands. 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. NAROTTAM 
DHAKAD & ANR. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]
316 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
e.  
Only in the case of summary trials under Chapter XXI, there is 
a speciﬁ c 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. 
(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.
317
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. 
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 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 
under Section 173 of CrPC. 
16. There are two provisions in CrPC which deal with the eﬀ ect of error, 
omission, or irregularity in the proceedings of the trial of a criminal case. 
The ﬁ rst is Section 464 which deals with the eﬀ ect 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 ﬁ nding, 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 speciﬁ c provision to that
eﬀ ect under sub-section 
(2) of Section 465. 
17. Therefore, 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 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 ﬁ nal report/charge 
sheet under Section 173, 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 Section 272 of CrPC. Even if such 
a requirement is read into Section 173, per se, the proceedings will not be 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. NAROTTAM 
DHAKAD & ANR. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]
318 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
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 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, 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 
ﬁ nal 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 ﬁ led, 
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 Artiﬁ cial Intelligence tools for making translations, providing 
translations will not be that diﬃ  cult 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 ﬁ led within 
the period provided either under Section 167 of 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.
319
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 oﬀ ences or oﬀ ences having wide 
ramiﬁ cations. Obviously, such central agencies, in every case will not be 
in a position to ﬁ le the ﬁ nal 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 ﬁ nding of fact was recorded by the trial 
court that the respondent is an educated person. The oﬀ ence 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 ﬁ nding that the ﬁ rst respondent-accused 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 
non-supply of translation of the charge sheet and other documents to the 
accused in both appeals will occasion a failure of justice.
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.
Headnotes prepared by:  
Appeals allowed.
Divya Pandey
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. NAROTTAM 
DHAKAD & ANR. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]