Mr.P.Raja, v. The Chairman,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.No.20419 of 2020 P.Raja ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Chairman District Legal Services Authority, District Court Campus, Tiruvannamalai.
2. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, District court Campus, Tiruvannamalai.
... Respondents Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03.11.2020 which was given to disburse the remaining compensation amount within the time frame. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arokia ManiRaj For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 03.11.2020 wherein the petitioner has sought for disbursement of the remaining compensation amount.
2. The Son of the petitioner was murdered and an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.346 of 2015. The case ultimately ended in conviction of three accused persons in SC.No.60 of 2018 by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thiruvannamalai, by Judgment dated 17.03.2020. The other accused persons were acquitted.
3. The petitioner was given an interim compensation of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- under the Victim Compensation Act. After completion of the criminal case, the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent seeking for the disbursement of the remaining compensation. Since the same was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate directions.
4. Heard Mr.Arokia Mani Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.
5. When the matter came up for hearing on 06.01.2021, this Court directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to take instructions from the respondents. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that when the final judgment was passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, the Court did not grant any payment of compensation to the petitioner and the same did not form part of the sentence imposed by the trial Court. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the second respondent cannot grant any compensation to the petitioner.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also circulated the rejection order passed by the Chairman/Principal District Judge, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, in this regard on 09.10.2020.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the acquittal of the remaining accused persons and in the appeal, the petitioner has also sought for the relief of compensation.
8. In view of the above development, for the present, no directions can be issued to the respondents to pay the remaining compensation to the petitioner since the Trial Court has not imposed any sentence of compensation against the accused persons. It is left open to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the appeal that has already been filed before this Court.
9. This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS VI) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar rli
To 1.The Chairman District Legal Services Authority, District Court Campus, Tiruvannamalai.
2. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, District court Campus, Tiruvannamalai.
3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai - 600 104.
W.P.No.20419 of 2020 NRL(CO) NRA(10/03/2021)