Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Sd3 Rupali Rani Parui @ Rupali Parui vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 December, 2017

Author: Debangsu Basak

Bench: Debangsu Basak

                                 1


52.   05.12.                     W.P. 28901 (W) of 2017
       2017
Sd3                        Rupali Rani Parui @ Rupali Parui.
                                        Versus
                              Union of India & Ors.


                     Mr. Debashis Banerjee
                                     ...for the petitioner.

                     Mr. Joydeep Sen
                     Mr. Guddu Singh
                                           ...for the respondent no.1

Mr. Pantu Deb Roy Mr. Arindam Deb Roy ...for the State.

An acid attack victim seeks compensation under the Central Scheme.

The State and the Central Government are represented.

The existence of a Central Scheme favouring the acid attack victim is not disputed. The entitlement is sought to be disputed on the ground of lapse of time.

The learned advocate for the petitioner relies upon a decision reported in 2017 Criminal Law Journal 4041 014 (Piyali Dutta -VS- The State of West Bengal & Ors.) and submits that, the Court has held that there is no time limit in respect of such beneficial schemes.

Piyali Dutta (Supra), holds that, a person suffering an acid attack prior to December 31, 2009 is entitled to compensation under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In such circumstances, the petitioner may be granted such compensation as is due to her under the Central Scheme within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order to the authorities.

The State is yet to consider the request for 2 reimbursement of medical expenses. There subsists an order passed in an earlier writ petition directing the State Government to do so.

In such circumstances, the respondent no.2 is requested to consider the claim for reimbursement in accordance with law and ensure disbursement of the same if the petitioner is found entitled thereto. He is requested to complete the entire exercise within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order.

W.P. 28901 (W) of 2017 is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Urgent certified Website copy of this order, if applied, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

(Debangsu Basak, J.)