A.ALINE Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF PUDUCHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed to quash the order bearing reference No.800/UTPLSA/2017-18 dated 3 / 4 -8-2017 issued by the third respondent and consequently to direct the respondents to comply with the provisions of Sec. 357-A of the Criminal Procedure Code and grant victim assistance to the petitioner with all attendant benefits.

(2.) After filing the writ petition, the petitioner came to understand that the request of the petitioner before the prison authorities was rejected by the order dtd. 4/8/2017. Therefore, the petitioner filed petition to amend the prayer and the same was allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner is challenging the order dtd. 4/8/2017 passed by the third respondent and also seeking direction to the respondents to comply with the provisions of Sec. 357A of Cr.P.C and to grant victim assistance to the petitioner.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that she is one of the daughters of one, Abhimannan Prakash, a life convict who was punished for having murdered the petitioner and her sister's mother. In pursuant to the said crime, FIR was registered in crime No.221 of 2003. In pursuant to the registration of FIR, investigation was completed and filed final report and the same had been taken cognizance in SC.No.11 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC. By the judgment dtd. 25/3/2009, he was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life. Their mother was murdered and their father is incarcerating imprisonment in Central Prison, Kalapet. They were under the care and custody of their maternal grandmother who also recently passed away. They came to know that a portion of wages in the prison of their father is deducted for being paid to the victims affected by the crime. Therefore, the petitioner and her sister being the victims, are entitled to receive the said amount. Therefore, they approached the second respondent, but of no avail. By an order dtd. 23/5/2017, they have to approach the court as per Sec. 2(2) of Sec. 357A of Cr.P.C. to get victim assistance. However, the petitioner approached the third respondent. Their claim was rejected on the ground that the Puducherry Victim Assistance Scheme, 2012 came into force on 7/2/2013, whereas the claim made by the petitioner with regard to the occurrence happened in the year 2003. Therefore, the scheme could not be invoked for ordering payment of assistance as it is barred. Further stated that these very principles apply in the case of an amendment in a Statute. If the amendment intends to create a substantial right or if it affects the vested right, it shall ordinarily be prospective in nature though an amendment in the procedural law like relating to form and limitation can be applied retrospectively.