The Uttarakhand High Court has overturned the conviction of four Chinese nationals and directed a fresh trial after finding that they were not provided an interpreter at the crucial stage of framing charges. The court held that this lapse struck at the very root of a fair trial.
Justice Ashish Naithani, hearing the review petition, said the trial suffered from a “fundamental error” because the accused neither understood Hindi nor English, yet the charges were read out without an interpreter. The judge noted that the subordinate courts themselves had acknowledged this language barrier, but still proceeded without ensuring translation at the initial stage.
The four individuals were detained during a border check in the Banbasa area of Champawat district in 2019. Authorities alleged that they were travelling without valid passports and visas, and that the documents recovered from them were forged. They were booked under multiple provisions, including cheating (Sections 419 and 420 IPC), forgery (Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC), criminal conspiracy (Section 120B IPC), and offences under the Passport Act and the Foreigners Act.
A magistrate had acquitted them of some charges but convicted them on others, and the sessions court later upheld those findings. The accused then approached the High Court, arguing that the trial was vitiated.
Agreeing with their contention, Justice Naithani said the absence of an interpreter during the framing of charges was a serious procedural defect that could not be cured at a later stage. Although an interpreter was made available when their statements were recorded, the court stressed that the first and most essential step — explaining the charges — had been performed incorrectly, rendering all subsequent proceedings meaningless.
“The accused did not understand Hindi or English but only Chinese. Despite this, the charges were framed without the assistance of an interpreter, which violates the fundamental right to a fair trial,” the bench observed.
The High Court set aside the orders of the magistrate and the sessions court, quashed the conviction and sentence, and ordered that the trial begin afresh from the start, with an interpreter necessarily present throughout.
