V. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the Judgment and order passed on 25/7/1984 by Mr. Sushil Kumar, Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar. The learned Judge dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1984 and upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed against the present revisionist by the learned Magistrate. The case was one under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the trial court judgment was delivered by Mr. J. C. Misra, Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar on 13/3/1984. He found the revisionist guilty. convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000. 00. It was also provided that in the event of failure to pay the amount of fine the accused was also further to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. ( 2 ) THE occurrence allegedly took place on 17/11/1978 at about 5 in the evening, when it is said that the revisionist was going to sell milk. He was accosted near the Jansath Cinema Hall by the Food Inspector who obtained 660 mt. of sample of milk on payment of Rs. 1. 60 P. This was sent to the Analyst and was found to be short in fatty contents by 13 per cent. The case was there fore, started. ( 3 ) REVISION has been admitted on the question of sentence only. Therefore, the concurrent finding of the two Courts below about the factum of occurrence, has not been disputed nor could be disputed. It was brought out in the statement of the accused recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. that his age at the time of his statement was 21 years. This fact was not disputed and the learned Sessions Judge has mentioned is in the last but one paragraph of the judgment, wherein he bas noted that an argument was advanced before him that since the revisionist was a minor on the date of the commission of the offence, he may be granted the benefit of Section 4 of the U. P. First Offenders Probation Act. This plea was, however, rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that on the date of the judgment the applicant was a major, and hence the benefit under section 4 was not to be granted to him. This plea was, however, rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that on the date of the judgment the applicant was a major, and hence the benefit under section 4 was not to be granted to him. ( 4 ) IT will thus appear that on the date when this occurrence was committed i. e. 17. 11. 1978, the revisionist was a minor aged less than 18 years. In the case of Rajveer and others. v. The State1 Criminal appeal No. 1890 of 1977 disposed of by this Court on 16. 2. 1982. the Court was considering a case in which the accused was allegedly responsible for committing a riot. At the time of the occurrence, he was only 17 years of age and, therefore, benefit of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act was extended to him. It means. therefore that it is not necessarily the date of the judgment which is to be the guiding factor in determining as to what sentence should be awarded, but the date of the occurrence, and if the accused is found to be a minor on that date the Court may extend to him the benefit of Probation Act. Therefore, I think that it was a case fit enough to attract provisions of section 4 of the U. P. First Offenders Probation Act and the revision has therefore to be allowed to this extent that the conviction of the appellant as made by the learned Trial Magistrate vide order dated 13. 3. 84 and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar vide, order dated 25. 7. 1984 is upheld, but instead of sentencing the revisionist Noor Mohammad son of Nasira atonce to the punishment awarded to him. I direct that he shall be released on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 4000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Let a copy of the order be forthwith transmitted to the learned Magistrate for compliance. 1. 1982 AIld. Law Journal, Notes of Cases 90. VICTIM OF CRIME: PROSPECTIVE OF HIS RIGHTS By Dr. Let a copy of the order be forthwith transmitted to the learned Magistrate for compliance. 1. 1982 AIld. Law Journal, Notes of Cases 90. VICTIM OF CRIME: PROSPECTIVE OF HIS RIGHTS By Dr. S. N. Rath, Advocate, Berhampur, (Orissa) A person who has suffered by an unlawful act of another, or a person who has been subjected to sufferings is a victim of crime. Crime is an act or omission punishable by law. The term offence has a wide, connotation. It means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force. A person who has been subjected to suffer in any manner by another by an act or omission punishable by law is a victim of Crime. It is the concern of interaction of the victim and the offender. An individual, a family, a class, a community or a nation may be the victim of crime. It usually arises as follows (i) under the common law offences affecting the human body, property or by offences relating to documents and to property marks, offences relating to marriage, defamation, criminal intimidation, insult or annoyance, or criminal breach of contract of service; Individuals are victims in all such cases. (ii) Offences relating to election, contempts of the lawful authority of public servants, offences against public justice, offences relating to coin and Govt. , stamps are illustrations where the nation is the victim. (iii) Offences against public tranquility, offences relating to weights and measures, offences affecting the public health, safety, convenience, deceny and morals, offences relating to Religion are instances affecting the class or community Similarly adulteration and misbranding of food articles and drugs, improper distribution of essential commodities, smuggling of goods, black- marketing, immoral traffic in women and girls affect the community as well as the nation. The Indian legal system do not provide adequate remedies for the victims. The victims are some times responsible for the crime. The usual mode of participation of the victims in the crime are in the forms of provocation, instigation or making allure to the offender to commit the crime, by use of physical force or show of weapon or gesture of assault etc. But the general exceptions of mistake, absence of mens rea, unsoundness of mind, consent, private defence available to avoid punishment can not be justifications to refuse relief to the victims. But the general exceptions of mistake, absence of mens rea, unsoundness of mind, consent, private defence available to avoid punishment can not be justifications to refuse relief to the victims. Many of the developing countries like Great Britain, California, New Zealand etc. , have made effective and adequate provisions for compensation to victims. The Hindu Criminal haw disappeared before the Mohamedan Criminal Law and Mohamedan Criminal Law disappeared before the English Criminal law. The Hindu Criminal law provided compensation to victims on equity and good conscious wherever it is possible. Under the Mohamedan Criminal Law, blood money was payable to the near relations of the deceased victim. Under Roman Law offences which we are accustomed to regard as crimes were exclusively treated as torts and not there only, but violent robbery, trespass libel, and slander all alike gave rise to an obligation or vinculum juries, and were all required by a payment of money. The law of German Tribes describe an immense system of money compensation for homicide, and with few exceptions, as large a scheme of compensation for minor injuries. Under Anglo-Sexon Law a saw was placed on the life of every free man according to his rank, and a corresponding sum on every wound that could be inflicted on his person. From the time of Deodand, the victim was being compensated when there was no codified law on compensatory grounds. Kotilyas Arthashastra also mentions compensation to victim. The modern penology of India has not thought of the concern of victim. It might be due to most of the common law offenders being poor, undergo imprisonment in lieu of fine. As regards the economic and statutory offences, the victims are the general public and the fine amount collected goes to the exchequer. The victims in such cases are public at large. A little development to compensate the victim has been made in the Criminal Procedure Code of 11:173 although a systematic study of victimology advocated by Sociologists and Criminologists are given thought of as early as 1947- 1948 without much result. The Special Penal Statutes contain provisions of confiscation of properties involved in commission of the offence. We are very much concern with the victimization of individuals and much more to the society. In cases of theft, robbery and dacoity the articles lost by victims are rarely restored. The Special Penal Statutes contain provisions of confiscation of properties involved in commission of the offence. We are very much concern with the victimization of individuals and much more to the society. In cases of theft, robbery and dacoity the articles lost by victims are rarely restored. We do not have any social defence measures to console a victim morally. Victims of Motor Vehicle accidents are only specially dealt for adequate compensation considering it as an exigency arising due to negligence. Lok Adalats help to settle the amount promptly. The occurrence of an offence have been considered as a bilateral act of the victim and She offender and such in idea is responsible to ignore the pain suffered by the victim. There may be situations where the victims contribution might be there and even in a higher degree responsible for the crime; but that is not a Justification to by-pass his sufferings. It cannot be ruled out that there may be cases of self defence or provocation or consent giving rise to the crime. Sociological, economical, situational, biological, psychological, criminological relationship of the victim and the offender is now being studied as a new subject victimology every where gaining equal momentum for social defence. Responsibility of the victim in commission of an offence is often considered and presented as a protest to ungard a victim. Damages in civil wrongs and compensation in crimes are to be statutorily provided to safe guard the liberty of a victim, which also acts as a deterrent penalty. The Fatal Accidents Act 1955 is a general Act providing compensation to families for loss occasioned by the death of a person caused by actionable wrong. Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 provides that the court may, if it thinks fit, an order directing the offender to pay compensation and costs as is felt reasonable to the victim. These Acts form the basis for the compensation to the victims of crime. The Fatal Accidents Act and the Motor Vehicle Act are age old laws providing compensation for the personal injuries caused by accident. Indian Criminal law is not victim-Oriented but offender-oriented. More Governmental responsibility and better enforcement of the legal provisions relating to compensation to victims will not only help the victims but also be a deterrent to offenders. There are a number of offences which cannot be pursued except by the injured party. Indian Criminal law is not victim-Oriented but offender-oriented. More Governmental responsibility and better enforcement of the legal provisions relating to compensation to victims will not only help the victims but also be a deterrent to offenders. There are a number of offences which cannot be pursued except by the injured party. Under the present system it is the duty of the victim, or in case of his death by his dependants to file a suit to realise the damages. Thus both retributive and remedial justice appears to have culminated in our system. No offence can be compounded without consent of the victim. The idea that all crime are wrongs against the State or aggregate community, and that it is the proper function of the State to pursue crimes without reference to the person wronged, is a conception of comparatively modern growth but not with reference to modern criminal jurisprudence. This concept is to-day felt inadequate in absence of the remedial reliefs to the victim There is a long gap between the cup and the lip. Many a report to police are not investigated if investigated not charge sheeted, if charge sheeted not properly pursued and ultimately fails. Relief is available for M. V. accident cases provided it is properly and timely claimed by the dependants of the deceased. All the accidents occurring every day do not follow with a claim. As regards injuries or death occurring in course of employment coming within the four corners of the Work-mens Compensation Act 1923 or allied laws are supposed to be looked after by the labour welfare officers. Victims not covered by any special law are to seek relief under the Fatal Accidents Act like other torts. The difficulties are in cases of the victims of felonious torts and who suffered on account of a common law offence. The State has statutorily monopolised the area for prosecuting the offenders in the larger interest of the society. But in case the prosecuting Officers remain silent or do not take the required interest in the case, the victim has to file a complaint before the magistrate and pursue the case at his costs in his interest though ultimately he can only quench his revenge in case of a conviction. But in case the prosecuting Officers remain silent or do not take the required interest in the case, the victim has to file a complaint before the magistrate and pursue the case at his costs in his interest though ultimately he can only quench his revenge in case of a conviction. Such private complaints left over by the police arc not less in number and there is no provision for dealing with the prosecuting agencies for their misfeasance. Massacre in Punjab has victimised several innocent families. The terrorists are declared unidentified and there are no statutory provisions for the State to compensate the victims or their dependents. The informant or the victim or the witness have no protection under law. They are harassed by police very often during investigation and while attending court and also by courts by frequent adjourn ments. A complainant has to pursue his case at his own cost. In case the offence is triable by the court of Sessions, it is his duty to produce all his witnesses for an enquiry before the committing magistrate. As regards non cognizable cases, the Government has no responsibility to initiate any prosecution. It is only the responsibility of the victim to initiate prosecution retributively. In case of cognizable offences, the victim need not go to the police. Any person can report the matter to police to set the Jaw in motion. They stand as mere witnesses. Hearing on sentence on conviction is aimed at a victimological enquiry envisaged not only to determine the sentence to be awarded but also to consider payment of compensation to the victim or his dependent as an integral part. Hearing on sentence is mandatory in sessions and warrant cases. It is only followed in a perfunctory manner by the courts and in many cases no enquiry is made to ascertain the various factors relating the accused victim relation before imposing the sentence. A victim is always left to cry but an offender is better secured and protected in case of a prosecution. The graver the offence, the more is the protection to the accused. A victim is always left to cry but an offender is better secured and protected in case of a prosecution. The graver the offence, the more is the protection to the accused. Art. 39-A of the Constitution inserted by the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976 reads as follows:equal justice and free legal aid: The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. In terms though there is no bar for legal aid to victims, it is impliedly ineffective in view of the provisions of the Cr. P. C. which makes obligatory in case of a complaint to seek his own redress. There are voluntary organisation which render assistance to the victims. There are few instances where the courts have interfered in awarding compensation to victims on the report of third parties as happened in the case of victims of Arwal in Gaya district of Bihar. Many a cases are never attended to by police. Police being burdened with maintenance of law and order as well as investigation of crimes, do not devote all their time for the required investigation. They do not visit the spot or take up investigation forthwith unless the occurrence attracts public consciousness. The delay in spot visit and investigation looses the gravity of the occurrence and looses force of evidence. At a belated stage many complications crept up resulting in the failure of the prosecution. Any person having knowledge of commission of an offence can report the matter to police in order to set the law in motion. The victim himself can also report to police and set the law in motion. This happens only in case of cognizable cases. The improvements made in Section 154 Cr. P. C. 1973 by inserting new Sub-sections (2) and (3) entitling the informant for a copy of his report or to send the substance of his information to the Superintendent of Police in case or refusal to register the case by the Officer-in-Charge of the police station has not been adequately worded to ventilate the grievance of the informant. P. C. 1973 by inserting new Sub-sections (2) and (3) entitling the informant for a copy of his report or to send the substance of his information to the Superintendent of Police in case or refusal to register the case by the Officer-in-Charge of the police station has not been adequately worded to ventilate the grievance of the informant. The informant reverts to the position of a witness after report to police. He has no leg to stand in case of non-cognizable cases. Even in case of cognizable cases, the discretion as to examination of the witnesses rests with the investigating agency. In case of a charge sheet, the victim, if not the informant, has no role to play except to observe as a dumb spectator as a witness for prosecution. The victim or the informant may at best engage a counsel of his choice to assist the prosecutor but the case is to be presented only by the Government prosecutor. In case of perfunctory or improper investigation or where the investigator informs the informant that there is no sufficient evidence for a charge sheet, the victim can file a complaint before the magistrate and pursue at his own cost. After termination of the proceedings, the court may, in case of a conviction (holding the allegations of the complainant to be true), in his discretion, may award compensation to be paid by the accused to the victim in case of a cognizable offence or direct apportionment of the fine amount partly payable to the victim in case of a non-cognizable case. These provisions also existed under the Criminal Procedure Code 1b98 in black and white. The Jaw commission in their Forty First Report Vol. 1 (PP. 356-357) have expressed their view regarding these provisions in the following words: We think it is hardly necessary to emphasise this aspect, since in any event it is purely within the discretion of the criminal court to order or not to order payment of compensation, and in practice they are not particularly liberal in utilising this provision. Inspite of such observations, and restricted recommendations, the parliament made an elaborate provision for payment of compensation to the victim in an enlarged form in Section 357 Cr. P. C. 1973 as follows: Section 357. Order to pay compensation: 1. Inspite of such observations, and restricted recommendations, the parliament made an elaborate provision for payment of compensation to the victim in an enlarged form in Section 357 Cr. P. C. 1973 as follows: Section 357. Order to pay compensation: 1. When a court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (including sentence of death) of which tine forms a part, the court may, when passing judgement, order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied (a) In defraying the expenses properly incurred in the prosecution; (b) In the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by offence, when compensation is, in the opinion of the court, recoverable by such person in a civil court; (c) When any person is convicted of any offence for having caused the death of another person or of having abetted the commission of such an offence, in paying compensation to the persons who are, under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (13 of 1855), is entitled to recover damages from the person sentenced for the loss resulting to them from such death; (d) When any person is convicted of any offence which includes theft, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, or cheating, or of having dishonestly received or retained, or of having voluntarily assisted in disposing of, stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen, in compensating any bona-fide purchaser of such property for the loss of the same if such property is restored to the possession of the person entitled thereto. 2. If the fine is imposed in a case, which is subject to appeal, no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal is presented, before the decision of the appeal. 3. When a court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the court may, when passing judgement, order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced. 4. An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate court or by the High Court or Court of Sessions when exercising its powers of revision. 5. 4. An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate court or by the High Court or Court of Sessions when exercising its powers of revision. 5. At the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter, the court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this section. In view of the observations of the Law Commission that payment of compensation was purely within the discretion of the court and the provision was also not very liberally utilised, the word compensation is not qualified as substantial. The court has been empowered to compensate the victim even when the accused is not imposed with fine. Such compensation amount is to be paid by the accused in all cases. The state does not take any responsibility to compensate the victim when the court does not direct. There is also no alternate to compensate the victim in case the accused is not prepared or has no capacity to pay fine or compensation. There are no provisions to compensate the victim in case the accused is not convicted due to other obvious reasons. The limitations imposed under the old code restricting the compensation to the amount of fine is no longer a hindrance but the courts are reluctant to part with any money in favour of the victims. Thus in order to attract Section 357 Cr. P. C. 1973, unless the accused is imposed with a sentence of fine or when an accused is discharged or acquitted for any reason, the victim is not entitle to any compensation. The significant advantage in favour of the victim is that an order passed u/s. 357 Cr. P. C. is not independently appellable though the question of sentence can be considered as a whole in appeal or revision. The classical view of Full Bench of Madras High Court has interpreted the term Tinjury as any harm caused illegally to any person in body, mind, reputation or property and compensation for such injury is recoverable in a civil court as a tort. According to Calcutta High Court any person who is indicted in Act XIII of 1885 on account of death of any person can be awarded compensation. According to Calcutta High Court any person who is indicted in Act XIII of 1885 on account of death of any person can be awarded compensation. But when any person is convicted of a noncognizable offence, regarding which a complaint has been made the court may in addition to any penalty imposed upon him, order the accused to pay to the complainant in whole or in part the cost incurred by him in the prosecution. There is no Scope to order for payment of compensation to the victim in cases of non cognizable offences even on conviction. Victimology and criminology being the two branches of penology cannot be isolated one from the other. We cannot achieve our social defence goal without embarking an evolutionary process to solve the victims crisis. It is high time to make statutory provisions to meet the exigencies of victims who have a right to live and right to life enshrined in Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution. References: 1. Fatal Accidents Act 1855. 2. Criminal Procedure Code 1898. 3. Forty First Report of law Commission of Indian (1969 ). 4. Draft Bill of the Criminal Procedure Code (1970 ). 5. Criminal Procedure Code 1973. 6. Indian Penal Code 1860. 7. Constitution of India. 8. Mains Ancient Law (1950 ). 9. Probation of Offenders Act 1958. 10. Arunachalam, N-The law of crimes (1955 ). 11. Shamsul Huda- The Law of crimes (1902 ). 12. Gibson, E and Klein, S-London (1961 ). 13. Saxena, D. P. Study of victim in Future Crimmological Research in India (1978) 6 I. J. C. 94. 14. Singh, D. R. and Jatar, D. P. Compensation to the victims of dacoit gangs in the Chambal Valley (1980) 8 I. J. C. 21. 15. Singh, D. R. Development of victimology in India (1985) 13 I. J. C. 144. 16. Bajpal, G. S. and Mahaswari, H. S. Victim Practipitation in some violent offences (906) 14 I. J. C. 125. 17. Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. State of Bihar and others (AIR 1987 S. C. 355) 18. Y. Gangulu v. M. Dati I. L. R. 21 Mad 74. 19. Emperor v. Morgan I. L. R. 36 Cal. 302. 20. Thake and another v. Maurice (1986) 1 All. E. R. 497. .