Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) Petitioner has challenged the decision dated April 10, 2017 rendered by the District Legal Services Authority and a decision dated April 29, 2018 passed by the State Legal Services Authority exercising powers under the provisions of the West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017.
(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner was trafficked in 2009. The mother of the petitioner lodged a First Information Report with Jibantala Police Station on May 30, 2011. A charge sheet dated August 8, 2012 was submitted in the criminal case. The case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge at Alipore, 24 Parganas on September 21, 2013. The case was subsequently transferred to the learned 16th Additional Sessions Judge at Alipore for trial on November 12, 2013. The warrant of arrest issued against the accused is yet to be executed. There is an Order dated June 13, 2016 for further investigation. The trial is yet to commence. In such circumstances, an application dated January 4, 2017 was made for compensation under the West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017 to the District State Legal Services Authority. Such application was rejected by an Order dated April 10, 2017. The petitioner filed an appeal therefrom. Such appeal was rejected on July 10, 2017.
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has referred to Section 357 and 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He has also referred to the provisions of Section 2 (wa) and the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He has submitted that, such provisions were introduced by the same piece of legislation as that of Section 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. According to him, criminal justice is now veering towards victim rehabilitation and compensation apart from punishment. Significantly, Section 357 was not amended when, Section 357A was introduced to the statute. Therefore, the legislative intent was that, a victim should receive compensation notwithstanding the result of the trial. In support of such contentions he has relied upon (Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, 2013 3 AICLR 794). On the question of definition of Court, he has relied upon (Brajnandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain, 1956 AIR(SC) 66).;