However, Judge M L Tahilyani, granted time to Kasab's lawyer S G Abbas Kazmi, till May 2, to submit arguments on the charges proposed by the prosecution against the accused.

The court did not agree with the defence lawyer that Kasab needs to understand chargesheet to prepare his defence.

"Not all instructions of an accused are based on the chargesheet. This document (chargesheet) is mainly for the understanding of advocates. Hence the prayer to supply copy of chargesheet in Urdu is rejected," the judge noted.

The court has to take into consideration whether any prejudice would be caused to the accused if Urdu translation was not provided, the judge observed. Referring to a Supreme Court judgement, he observed that supply of copies of chargesheet is "basically issue of prejudice and not merely a technical point".

"Here the question is not of technical nature but that of prejudice. I have examined the prayer of accused from that point of view and feel that no prejudice would be caused to him if Urdu translation is not given," the judge noted.

As regards the plea of defence lawyer for one month time to advance arguments on proposed charges, the court felt that this is "too long a period" but gave him time till May 2 to prepare himself for submissions.

Kasab's lawyer Abbas Kazmi told reporters later that although the judge had not granted him "adequate" time to prepare for arguments on proposed charges, he would cooperate with the court and abide by the time frame prescribed.

In another development, the court reserved till April 24 its order on the prosecution's plea to hold an inquiry to determine whether Kasab was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence (November 26, 2008).

Special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam had requested for an inquiry to determine Kasab's age, noting that the court had the jurisdiction to decide whether the accused was a juvenile.

Kasab's lawyer argued that section 12 of Maharashtra Juvenile Justice Rules lays down procedure for such an inquiry. He said under the rules, Juvenile Justice Board, which is a competent authority, can conduct the inquiry.

Nikam submitted that Justice Juvenile Act clearly stated that court conducting the trial could order an inquiry to determine age of the accused. "The Act superceded the rules and hence this court had the jurisdiction to order the probe."

Kazmi told mediapersons outside the court that he did not have any documents to prove Kasab's age and it was for the court to order an inquiry to determine his age.

Earlier, the court had rejected Kasab's plea that he was a juvenile and hence it had no jurisdiction to try him.

However, the court had kept the issue open saying that if it came to conclusion during trial that Kasab was a juvenile it would order an inquiry to determine his age.