Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. In support of his aforesaid plea, Mr Prabhakar has, by relying on the decisions in P Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578 and Common Cause (A Regd Society) v. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 511, urged that as per Section 357, Cr.P.C., it is the function of the Court to determine compensation, which function could not have been delegated to a committee, i.e., the DSLSA merely by way of guidelines having no statutory backing and that too only on the premise that since the DSLSA has the expertise in determining compensation under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme as envisaged under Section 357A, Cr.P.C., it should give its recommendations for determining compensation under Section 357, Cr.P.C. as well. The schemes for award of compensation as envisaged by the legislature under Sections 357 and 357A, Cr.P.C. being different, they have contended, this Court could not have imported the mechanism provided under Section 357A of the Cr.P.C. for the procedure to be adopted by the Trial Court for determining victim compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. as well.

24. Learned counsel for the parties as also the learned Amicus Curiae have further urged that while the right of the victims to receive compensation either from the accused under Section 357, Cr.PC and/or from the DSLSA under Section 357A, Cr.PC has to be safeguarded, it is the mandatory procedure laid down in Karan (supra) for determining victim compensation under Section 357, Cr.P.C. which is leading to delay in passing of orders on sentence. It is their plea that even if the Court in Karan (supra) was justified in framing guidelines for determining the eligibility of the victim to receive compensation as also the quantum of compensation, the formats for the affidavits to be furnished by the accused and the State directed under the guidelines are leading to inordinate delay in passing of orders on compensation and sentence.

34. Since it has been urged by learned counsel for the parties that while issuing the guidelines for determining the compensation payable, if any, under Section 357, Cr.P.C., this Court in Karan (supra) has wrongly adopted the procedure applicable only to cases covered under Section 357A, Cr.P.C, we may also refer to Section 357A, Cr.P.C. This provision we find, lays down the framework for compensation to be awarded by the State Legal Services Authority, by way of a Victim Compensation Scheme which is to be framed by the State Government, in consultation with the Central Government. The same reads as under:

35. From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions of Sections 357 and 357A, Cr.P.C., what clearly emerges is that under the Code, while the State Legal Services Authority is required to step in for the purposes of awarding compensation in the eventualities specified in Section 357A, Cr.P.C., under Section 357, Cr.P.C. the said Authority has no role in passing of orders awarding victim compensation. It is, thus, evident that in accordance with the scheme of Section 357, Cr.P.C. it is the sole prerogative of the Trial Court to compute and award victim compensation under cases covered by this provision.