it and bring out the pearls from the entire deep sea. And without taking much time, I would request Mr. Manokaran to take things forward. Over to you. Good evening to one and all. Thank you Mr. Rukas for giving this chance to appear before the listeners again during this pandemic period. I hope and wish that all of you have vaccinated. If not, please do that because there is no other way to save our lives. The reason for taking this topic is that as a lawyer practicing in the criminal side also for considerable length of period, my mind was pondering over the agonies experienced by the victims of a crime. Therefore, I have chosen this topic for our today's discussion. I hope that many of the senior advocates and well-learned advocates are also here. And my endeavor is only to tell the fundamentals of the fundamentals of the position of victims in the criminal trial and not to educate anyone. Just as a knowledge sharing, I am here before you. First, let us go to the definition of victim. You know well that till 31-12-2009, the word victim has not been defined anywhere in the criminal law. Neither in IPC nor in CRPC, the word victim has not been defined till 31-12-2009. Let us go to the common definition of victim. In common parlance, you know well that victim means anyone who overpowered against his own will is a victim. Simple meaning and it is otherwise called as the person or injured individual or his family members or even sometimes a group of persons or even unidentified or unborn persons are also called as victims. Even in Oxford advanced dictionary also defines the word victim. He says that victim is a person who is put to death or subjected to misfortune by another, one who suffers severely in body or property through cruel or oppressive treatment. Similarly, the blocks dictionary also says that the person who is the object of a crime. But my view is that the art definition for victim has been clearly defined by the union declaration of the year 1985 which defines victim as under. Victim means a person. Victim means the persons who individually or collectively have suffered harm including physical or mental torture, agony, emotional sufferings and economic loss or even substantial impairment of fundamental right out of the crime committed. So this was the comprehensive definition given by union declaration of the year 1985. Under this circumstances, the amendment to the code, the word victim has been inserted under the definition clause under section 2 sub clause WA. He says that victim means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused has been charged. So this is a simple definition given under section 2 sub clause WA. It has further expression. Expression victim includes his or her guardian or legal her. My simple view to this definition is that it is not exhausting. It has not covered all the victims of a crime. It has simply confined to a particular set of people. Therefore, my view is that the word definition given under section 2 WA requires little more definition to include all the persons who are suffering or who are at sufferance because of the crime committed. Now let us go to how the criminal law and the crime has evolved. The history of crime is as old as mankind itself. In the primitive periods, the victim himself had a right to choose the punishment and he can inflict upon the accused. This was the position earlier and there was no law or rule or state had no control over it. But due to civilization and gradually the categories of crimes have been codified and the penal laws have been enacted, then state has taken over the criminal prosecution. In fact, you know well in those period, primitive periods, the punishment has been imposed by the victim himself, like tooth for tooth or an eye for an eye. This was the position there. But it has gradually changed because of the civilization and various developmental activities, particularly how even notwithstanding the situation, the position of the victim is always in the backseat. Their right has not been recognized at any point of time. And this position has been changed a little after the Second World War. And thereafter, the developed countries like UK, USA, Australia and New Zealand, the certain progressive thinkers of those developed countries have focused their attention towards the victims of the crime. So only then the law has been evolved little after little. But however, in India is concerned, the position of the victim continues to be the legal mayobia even till today is my view. In fact, the role of the victim in a criminal case is concerned according to me is nil. I asked myself as to what is the role of the victim in a criminal investigation or trial. My view is that the victim is Mr. Nobody. He has no say at all. You know well after the complaint is given to the police under 154, complaint is given to the police, then the complaint will be entertained and the FIR will be registered under 154-1. Thereafter, the victim will be summoned to give evidence only in the court at the time of giving evidence. So in between, the victim has no say at all. And the police never put them on notice about the progress of the investigation and the evidence collected during the course of the investigation, particularly when his own complaint is, the victim's complaint is under investigation. The entire prosecution is for the cause of the victim. But the victim has not been given any role at all. That is the greatest agony which the victim is facing. As far as the victim's position in the criminal judicial system is concerned, it is more agonizing on. And not only that they have already suffered a loss. And even during the course of the investigation, and even again in the course of the trial, he was subjected to secondary victimization by a gross examination and by criminal questions are put under the guise of eliciting the answers in favor of the defense. When I analyzed the entire scheme of the act, according to me, the victim has two options. The first option, he has a right to give a complaint to the police. The second option, if no action is taken, he can go to the court by way of a private complaint. Approaching the police is concerned. The police has refused to take action under section 154.1 CRPC. Then the next option available to the complainant is to approach the district superintendent of police under section 154 subclass III CRPC, complaining inaction on the part of the station office. Even if the SPO police has not shown any interest, then the remedy of the complainant is to approach the court by filing a complaint either under section 156.3 for referring it to the police for registering an FIR or to file a complaint under section 190. These are all the options available. But the Tamil Nadu Police Commission has filed a detailed study report which is on record. It says that when a person goes to a police station with a complaint, no one listens in patiently and willingly. This is the organizing position, even prevailing all over the country. In fact, you know well the conscience bench of the Supreme Court, Nalitha Kumari reported in 2014-2 SCC, page number 1, held that when a complaint discloses cognisable offence, the police officer has no other option except to register a case. If not, an action can be taken departmentally against the officer. This is the law laid down by the honorable Supreme Court. But the organizing position is that even now, the ground reality has not been changed. Every time the complainant has to approach here and there for the purpose of getting his complaint registered. After registration of the crime, then the police will proceed to investigate the matter and the charges will be filed. Even at the time of filing the charges, he had no occasion to get the copy of the charges before proceeding further. There are exceptions. Recently, in POSCO Act, a special provision has been enacted to enable the victim to get all the copies under section 207. Yes, it has been furnished with the accused. So that is one development so far as POSCO Act is concerned, but not in other penal laws. In a criminal trial also, my view is that the scope of the intervention at the instance of the complainant is very limited. He is only a mute witness even before the trial code. And the private counsel engaged by him is also counsel by sufferance. He cannot independently say anything before the court. He can only act as a watchdog or he can assist the prosecutor whatever he wants to convey to the court. In fact, the Supreme Court, the Honorable Justice Katie Thomas, held that the position of a private counsel in the criminal trial is nothing but a junior advocate assisting the senior in a trial. That is the ground reality because he has no separate audience. In session trial, he can file only written arguments. But in the magistral court, he can get the permission of the court to conduct a trial. But very rarely, the permission is granted because right from 1966, the Supreme Court has held that we cannot undermine the power of the public prosecutor because he is neither winning or losing the case in every trial. He is an officer of the court. Therefore, the power of the public prosecutor should be given supremacy in the criminal trial is concerned. This is the view of the Supreme Court right from the beginning. In effect, the victims are unfortunately the unforgetten people in the criminal justice delivery system. No doubt in the accusatory system, the accused is presumed to be innocent until the guilt is brewed. But if you read, if you see the constitutional scheme and the other penal laws, even procedural laws, would go to show that always the penal laws are taking care of the interest of the accused. And only to a minimum extent, the interest of the victim is taken note of. I will give you a few instances. You will easily understand how our criminal judicial system is giving always importance to the accused. Firstly, accused has a right not to be arrested except in accordance with law. Even after complaint is given, he has every right not to be arrested except in accordance with law. Secondly, right to be produced before the court, the nearest judicial measure within 24 hours of his arrest. Thirdly, right to know the grounds of his arrest. This position of law has been well said by the Honorable Supreme Court in D.K. Basu, 1997. Then, right to be represented by a council, even soon after the FIR is registered, he has every right to protect his interest. Then, right to get legal aid, right to get bail, right to have public trial, all these things are available to the accused. Then, right to immunity from compulsory testimony. Because silence is his fundamental right. So, he need not say anything about the defense, anything about the merits of the matter in the course of his defense. Because you know well that the criminal cases is based on a defense theory. It is not based on any pleadings as like in the civil case. Therefore, he can keep quiet, but silence is the fundamental right of the accused. Then, right to test the evidence by way of cross-examination. Then, lastly, right to be heard about the sentence. So, these are all the rights available to the accused from the date of registration of the crime till the end of the case. But even right to appeal, which is also available to the accused. That right has been given to the complainant only in 2009. All along, the right of appeal was also not granted to the complainant. Again, the order of acquittal, all for enhancement. The right has been recognized under way of amendment to the code only on 31-12-2009. So, even after the conclusion of the trial, arguments are heard. The judgment would have been delivered, either acquitting or conveying the accused, in which also the complainant has no concern at all, victim has no concern at all. So, this is the present position. If you take overall aspect of the criminal justice delivery system, my view is that it is totally accused centric and not complainant oriented, so victim oriented. This is the ground reality in the criminal trial. I asked myself, is there any provisions or whether the code or the legislator have completely forgotten the plight of the victims? My view is that no, there are provisions, whether it is adequate or not is another aspect, but there are provisions which protect the interest of the victim. Hemli, if a complaint is given, that complaint is reduced in writing, then a copy of the said complaint has to be given free of cost to the complainant, as per section 154 subclass 1 of the CRPC. Next, the after the complaint is given, the station office officer has an option either to investigate or not to investigate for the reasons best known. If he has, if he has choose not to investigate, then he has to inform the complainant about his decision not to investigate, which is contemplated under section 157 subclass 2, 157 subclass 2. Then after the investigation is over, the final report is filed under 1732. If the final report is filed, then it should be communicated, it should be communicated to the informant, as per the mandate of section 173 subclass 2 to Roman 2, CRPC clearly says that after conclusion of the investigation, the decision taken by the investigation officer should be informed to the complainant. There are other provisions like 301 and 302, 301 and 302 of CRPC are the very, very vital provisions which gives at least some right to the complaint victim to engage a counsel in the course of the criminal trial. 301 says that even though 301 refers any court, it is confined to the sessions trial wherein the private counsel is supposed to assist the prosecutor and after the conclusion of the trial, he can file a written arguments in support of the prosecution case, only to that limited role the private counsel is given in so far as the criminal trial, session trial is concerned. At 302, CRPC is concerned, in a trial before a magistrate court, the complainant is entitled to engage a private counsel to conduct the prosecution. That right has again been recognized by way of amendment to the code by adding proviso to section 24 subclass 8 of CRPC with the effect from 31, 12, 2009. Even before proviso to 24, 8 was introduced, the law permits the private counsel, the victim to engage a private counsel under 302 CRPC. And the next comes in section 250 CRPC. Even if a person has been arrested in a false case or without any foundational facts, even the person who suffered arrest or prosecution in a false case is also a victim and he is also entitled to claim compensation under section 250 CRPC. Then this was the position prior to 2009. But there were a view and cry all over the country to the effect that the law has not taken note of the grievance of the complainant's or victim in a proper manner. All over the world, this problem has come up for consideration. The United Nation, as early as in the year 1985, has passed a declaration that the declaration of basic principles of justice for victim of a crime and the abuse of power. Declaration of basic principles of justice for victim of a crime and the abuse of power. So this was the foundation for the entire, for various countries to enact a specific law for the purpose of protecting the interest of the victims. So this was the first declaration made by the United Central Assembly of the United Nation. Soon after that, America, USA has also passed the Victim of Crimes Act 1984. Then Canada has also passed an enactment called Justice for Victims of Crime Act 1986. Then the New Zealand has passed an enactment called Victim of Offences Act 1987. Then UK has passed an enactment called Criminal Justice Act 1988. When various countries have passed various enactments to protect the interest of the victim, in our country also, the law commission in 154th report submitted in August 1996 has recommended to include various provisions in the code to protect the rights of the victims. However, no effective steps have been taken. At this juncture, the Honorable Justice Malimath was appointed as the head of the committee to revisit the entire code. Accordingly, he submitted a report called Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System. Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, commonly known as the report of the Malimath Committee, which was submitted in March 2003. In fact, the Malimath Committee report is the source for the amendments which were introduced in 2003 as well as in 2009. So that has given various recommendations to amend the penal laws as well as the procedural laws. Subsequently, in the law commission, in its 221st report, filed in April 2009, it was also recommended for the inclusion of various provisions. All these reports and the law commission reports and the Justice Malimath Committee's report were the cause for the legislature to carry out certain amendments in the code and equally in the IPC and the other evidence. So, the amendments have been made to protect the interest of the victims in all these major enactments. Substantial amendments have been brought on 312-2009 in the CRPC. The first amendment is that to include the definition for the victim under Section 2 subclass WA. Before that, there was no definition. I have already read that definition for Section 2A. Simultaneously, Proviso to Section 24A was added to enable the victim to approach the court, to appoint a private council to assist the prosecution. Then Section 57A to 357C of the CRPC was also instructed way of amendment. We had provision for compensation under 357. That was totally inadequate to meet the grievance of the victim. Therefore, the 357C, Capital A and Capital C was introduced. By which the code says that in every state, with the consent of the central government and with the coordination of the central government, shall prepare a scheme for the purpose of payment of compensation to the victims of a crime. Accordingly, once the scheme has been framed, that is, victim compensation scheme has been framed, wherever it is necessary, the court, irrespective of the conviction made, the court is entitled to forward the matter to the district legal service authority or state legal service authority to determine the compensation for the victims. So this was the and even interim compensation is also permissible. We will go to that little later. So this was the development has taken place by of amendment to the code on 812, 2009. Then last one, as far as 357A, B, C is concerned, the law has been discussed on various case laws. I will give you only three case laws. 2016, 3 SCC, 2016, 3 SCC, 669, Lakshmi versus Unina of India is a case relating to asset attack. This is the case in which the Supreme Court has held a victim of an asset attack is entitled to get three last commentations at the earliest point of time. This was the law laid down by the honorable Supreme Court in 2016, 3 SCC, 669, then 2016, 4 SCC, 2016, 4 SCC, 461, 2015, 2 SCC, 2015, 2 SCC, 227. In all these cases, the law, the, in fact, if I have to, in fact, I have to deal with the 357, I will take more than a hour even to discuss about the scope of 357 because a lot of judgments and a lot of number of development of law and March of law we have to deal with it. Then last one, 372 CRPC, Proviso 272 CRPC. You know well that the victim or a complainant of a crime in the event of any acutal or lesser compensation or for enhancement of sentence, there was no provision in the court prior to 31-12-2009. The only option available to the victim was to file a revision under 397-401 CRPC before the high court, again the order of acutal or for enhancement of the sentence. And the scope of that revision was very limited. The position has been considered by the honorable Supreme Court from 1967, Sinasami v. Stetop AP. The scope of interference in the revision is very limited. A lot of judgments have come on that aspect. But thanks to the legislature that the amendment was brought by way of Proviso 272 by which the following Proviso has been added, namely that the victim shall have right to prefer and appeal again the order passed by the court, acuting the accused or convicting for a lesser sentence or for imposing inadequate compensation under such appeal shall lie to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such court. Yet another flaw here, according to me, my humble view is that while giving right of appeal to the complaint victim, the legislature has forgotten the fact that the victim is also entitled to file an appeal for enhancement of the sentence. It is not there. Only against the order of acutal or lesser sentence are imposing inadequate compensation. Sentence imposed for lesser offence or inadequate compensation. For enhancement of sentence is concerned, no provision has been incorporated in the court. And there were a lot of confusions as to whether the victim of a crime has to file an appeal straight away under 372 without the leave or he has to file an application to get leave along with section 378. There were confusions for considerable time. A lot of full pen judgments and divisive judgments have come in that line. Finally, the law has been settled by the Honorable Supreme Court in Malyarjun case reported in 2019-2 SCC 752. Particularly, 229, the Supreme Court has considered the plight of the victim in a detailed manner. The agony of the victim has been thoroughly examined by the Supreme Court in this judgment. So this is the judgment which clearly says that the victim need not file an application seeking leave to file an appeal under section 372. You can straight away file an appeal to the High Court. Now this is again to the High Court or the court before whom the appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction. And yet another aspect is concerned, no limitation, the provision of limitation has not been touched. So we have to presume that if an appeal is filed against conviction, the limitation available is equally applicable to the appeal to be filed by the complainant under section 372. So these are all the development of the appeal. In fact, there are few full pen judgments also in respect of 2372. I will give you a few decisions. The full pen judgment of 2013 criminal law journal 4225, 2017 SCC online Rajasthan, 3,005, 2015 SCC online Delhi, 9808, 9802. This is also full pen judgment. And the judgment of the Madras High Court, 2020, 4 CTC, page number one. So these are all the provisions have been inserted by way of amendment. So by and large under section 154, 1572, 1542, 1572, 1732, then section 248, then 301, 302, 357, A2C and 372. These are all the provisions in my view as taken care of the grievance of the complainant. Then we'll go to certain amendments which were brought in the code, the criminal code, Indian penal code, as well as in the evidence act to take note of, to care of the victims in a sexual offenses act against women or minors and even disabled persons. After the aftermath of Nirbaya case, the legislator, the all over India, the people started agitating for inadequacy of law. Immediately the legislature started to introduce certain amendments in the code as well as IPC and other Novdansag to protect the interests of the victims. I'll give few provisions that you can look into it lesser, which protects the interests of the victim in a crime. Two previous sources were added to section 154.1, 154.1 CRPC says about giving off complaint registration of FIR, two provisors were added.  And the statement of these victims should be recorded only in their house or the place chosen by them. And they cannot be asked to come and appear before the police station. 1613 is a statement recorded in the course of the investigation. 161 subclass 3 says that the 161 statement to be recorded only by the woman police officer and not by others. Then 164 subclass 5A was added that the statement immediately the victim of a sexual harassment should be produced before the jurisdiction code for the purpose of recording 164 by the learned magistrate. Then section 54 capital A, CRPC was added for identification of the accused's consent, especially for disabled. And there are special provisions given by way of amendment to section 54 capital A. Then proviso 2 section 273 CRPC was added to see that there will not be no confrontation between the victim and the accused at any point of time. So this was added as a proviso 2 section 273.  Then there should be an in camera Then 53A CRPC deals with the medical aid and proviso 2 section 309 CRPC was added to see that the speedy trial is conducted and every trial shall be concluded within a period of two months. That is the very proper of the amendment to the proviso 2 section 309. Then 357A to 357C we have already seen the commensation provision to the victim of a crime.  Their names and identities should not be disclosed anywhere either in the media or in the public platform. It should be kept in secret. Then section 26 proviso 2 section 26 CRPC was specifically amended in 2006 to show that the trials in respect of these offenses should be conducted by a woman judge. So this is the special proviso has been added to section 26. Like that there are amendments in an IPC also section 166 capital A and 166 capital B IPC says that if the officer who is investigating the case relating to the certain offenses against a woman or a child or mentally retarded person relating to the sexual offenses are concerned any lapse on the part of the officer will be viewed very seriously. The officer concerned can be prosecuted under section 166 capital A and 166 capital B of IPC. The not only the legislator stopped with that they have also correspondingly inserted section 114 capital A of the evidence act by creating a presumption in favor of the team of sexual offenses act. If you read the amended portions of the IPC and CRPC you can see that they are mainly concerned with sexual offenses against women and children. This was introduced mainly because of the Darabaya case. So these are all the welcome developments in the in the code as well as in the final IPC as well as the evidence act which virtually helped the victims to have their grievance addressed. Now let us go to the judicial pronouncement judicial pronouncement of March of law in the Supreme Court. Yes, early as in 1960, 1966, AR-1966 Supreme Court, 911, AR-1960 Supreme Court, 911, Bahuram was a state. When when when Atamta was made to enable the private party in Atamta was made to get a permission to conduct a trial by private party in one voice Supreme Court said, no, we will never allow it. Always private private party has no locker standing to conduct a trial since the accrued person is always the state because nowadays the crime is not affecting the individual, the crime affects the state. Therefore, the prosecutor is the only authority to conduct the trial before the court. This was the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 19, AR-1966 Supreme Court, 911. This position of law has been held as obituary dicta only in 2014, 2014, 16 SCC, 623, 2014, 16 SCC, 16 SCC, 623, paragraph 28. The Supreme Court has held that the observations made earlier is only obituary dicta. Then 1979, the celebrated judge, honorable justice, V. R. Krishnayar, in his imitable style, in 1974 SCC, 719, 1974 SCC, 719, Ratan Singh, was a state held that the the weakness of our criminal jurisprudence is that victim of a crime. He is not given adequate attention and he is still the victim, deparation is still a vanishing point in criminal law. So this was the observation made by the honorable Supreme Court. Similar view was expressed by the slots of honorable justice V. R. Krishnayar in 1981, 1 SCC 107, 1981, 1 SCC 107. In between the constitutional bench of the honorable Supreme Court headed by honorable justice Krishnayar in 1983, 3 SCC 141, 1981, 3 SCC 141 held that the person agreed, the person agreed means even the brother of the the victim is also person agreed. An appeal before the honorable Supreme Court was filed by the brother of the victim against the order of acutal passed by the High Court. This issue has come up for discussion. After analyzing the law on the subject, the constitutional bench held that in appropriate cases the Supreme Court is entitled to grant leave by taking note of the interest of the person who is filing appeal under this nexus with the victim under the gravity of the offense. All those aspects should be taken note of and we cannot simply throw the appeal on the ground of locker standing. This was the view taken by the constitutional bench in 1983 SCC 14. After that in 1985, a celebrated judgment has come rendered by honorable justice P. N. Bhagavathi J. That is the case of Bhagavan Singh as a state reported in 1985 to SCC 537. It is a turning point in the criminal jurisprudence according to me because it is the first time in which the Supreme Court has recognized the right of the victim to participate in the course of the criminal trial. You know well that there are three options available for the Leonard judicial magistrate when the final report is filed, whether it is a positive report or negative report. He has three options. First option, he can accept the report and proceed further or he can close the report as it is or if a positive report is filed, he can close the report saying that no offense is made out or he can take the report on file and proceed further or the Leonard magistrate can order for further investigation. This is the first option available in the case of a positive report is filed. If it is a negative report is filed, again the magistrate has three options. First option, he can close the case by accepting the report or he can reject the report and order for further investigation or leaving the report as it is. The magistrate himself can take the complaint on file and proceed further by examining the witnesses under 201 and 202. These are all three options available to the magistrate. While discussing the set position, the Supreme Court has held that it is true that nowhere the complainant's right to file a protest petition has been recognized but their time has come to recognize such right. By observing so, the Supreme Court has held as under. In a case where the Leonard judicial magistrate to whom the report is forwarded under section 1732 that is the police report, decides not to take cognizance of the offense and to draw the proceedings or takes the law that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against, the informant must be given an opportunity of hearing, of being heard so that he can persuade the Leonard magistrate to take the cognizance of the offense and issue process. So this right though not available in the court by way of judgment law has been introduced in this Bhagavan Singh case. This is a celebrated decision. This has been repeatedly followed in number of cases until today. This position of law has not been disturbed even now. Then after 1985, then only in 1995, this was the R and O of the Hon. Justice Krishna here, then Hon. Justice Bhagavathi have gone. Thereafter, the R and O of Hon. Justice Thomas came in. In 1999, 7 SCC 467, 1999 7 SCC 467, Sevakumar v. Mukhamsan, Sevakumar v. Mukhamsan, in which the Hon. Justice K.T. Dhama Jay considered the ambit of scope and ambit of section 301 and 302, and Thurak Bhair analyzed the position and finally concluded that the role of a private council is akin to a junior who is assisting the senior in a criminal trial. This is what the observation made. So the position of a private council is by sufferance, council by sufferance. He has no independence. He can act as a watchdog. He can assist the public prosecutor. He can sit by his side and help him in the event of any omissions or lapses in the course of the trial. At the end of it, he can file a written submission after the arguments of the public prosecutor was over. So this is the law laid down in Sevakumar case. In fact, in the said judgment, the Hon. Supreme Court has given approval to two decisions of the Hon. Andhra Prasai Court, namely AR-1959 AP, AR-1959 AP, 659 and 477, two decisions in the same volume, AR-1959 AP, 659 and AR-1959 AP, 677. So the law discussed by the Hon. I. Court of Andhra Prasai are approved by the Hon. Supreme Court. It is a classic judgment to read. Everyone should read that, particularly who are practicing the criminal side. Then another judgment of the Hon. Justice K. T. Damajay reported in 2008 SCC, 2008 SCC 323. It is an interesting case. The university agency used to get financial assistance from the complainant party on the ground that the government treasury has no money. This came up before the Hon. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has heavily deprecated the practice of conducting prosecution after getting money from the prosecution, the victim party. The Supreme Court has held that would amount to higher investigation. If the investigation is conducted at the biggest of the money supplied by the complainant or victim, it is nothing but higher investigation. So the Supreme Court has held that the investigation agency cannot get financial assistance from the private parties for meeting out the expenses required for conducting investigation. Financial crunch of any state treasury is no justification for allowing a private party to supply funds to the police. It is acknowledged in reality that he who pays the piper calls the tune. So if you pay money, then the prosecution will add to the tune of the victim or the complainant. Therefore, this practice has been strongly deprecated by the apex court. Then comes another celebrated decision of the Hon. Supreme Court, again rendered by Hon. Justice Eddie Thomas, that is J.K. International Vessar State. J.K. International Vessar State reported in 2001-3 SCC, 2001-3 SCC 462. It is an interesting case. The accused has filed a cost petition before the High Court. The complainant or informant or victim filed a petition to impede himself in the said petition. It was rejected saying that, no, you have no say, you will hear only the prosecutor. This was the order passed by the Hon. High Court, which was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, only after the judgment of the Supreme Court in this case, my two main knowledge all over the country, the complainant is permitted to intervene in the cost petition filed by the accused. As far as common law is concerned, invariably the complainant should be adhered as the second respondent in the cost petition. Otherwise, even the cost petition will not be numbered. So in default, the complainant should be adhered as a party to the cost petition. The Supreme Court has held that a person who is aggrieved by the offense committed is not altogether wiped out from the scenario of trial, merely because the investigation was taken over by the police and the charge sheet was laid by them. The aggrieved party cannot be kept outside the corridors of the court when the case involving his grievances tried. An aggrieved person is not altogether to be eclipsed from the scenario before the criminal court. This was the law laid down by the honorable Supreme Court in JK International. In between, the honorable Supreme Court, again the honorable Supreme Court in 2012, 3 SCC, 126, Aziz Jha Begum was the state. The Supreme Court has observed as under, every citizen of this country has a right to get to this complaint properly investigated. The legal framework of investigation provided under our laws cannot be made selectively available to some persons and denied to others. This is a question of equal protection of laws and is governed by the guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. So right to get this complaint investigated is a fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In fact, many of us are not quoting this judgment in our day-to-day practice, but this is a classic judgment. It's a short and sweet judgment the Supreme Court said. We have to apply Article 14 to the complainant. Many complaints are not even entertained and even the aggrieved party has to approach the pillar to post for getting this complaint to registered. So this is the plight of the present situation. Then next comes Sandeep Kumar Bafna as a state 2014-16 SCC, 2014-16 SCC, 623. The view is almost in line with the view taken by honorable Justice K. D. Thomas in the earlier cases. The Supreme Court has held that the complainant or informant or aggrieved party may be heard at a crucial and critical juncture of the trial, so that his interest in the prosecution is not prejudiced or jeopardized. If the magistrate of the session judge harbors the opinion that the prosecution is likely to fail, the prudence would prompt the complainant or informant or aggrieved party to be given informal hearing. So in the course of the trial, if the courts come to a conclusion that the prosecution case cannot be believed, then at that stage, the Supreme Court said an informal hearing has to be given to the aggrieved person to represent his grievance. This was the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Then another judgment, role of the complainant in 2016-10 SCC, 2016-10 SCC, 378. Dharival industry is limited as a state. The role of the informant or a private party is limited during the prosecution of a case in a court of sessions. The counsel engaged by him is required to act under the direction of the public prosecutor. As far as 302 CRB is concerned, power is conferred on the magistrate to grant permission to the complainant to conduct the prosecution independently. This is an important development of law. Supreme Court has said that under 302-302 subclass II, even the private counsel can be permitted to conduct prosecution in appropriate cases. But ultimately, it is the discretion of the court. This is the law laid down. Then next judgment, the magistrate may consider as to whether the victim is in a position to assist the court and as to whether the trial does not involve such complicities which cannot be handled by the victim. On satisfaction of such fact, the magistrate would be within his discretion to grant permission to the victim to take over the inquiry of the pending, a pendency before the judicial magistrate. So this was the view similar to that of the earlier one, the private counsel is sent to come and conduct the prosecution under 302 subclass II. Then last one, very recently, 2020, 2 SCC, 2022 SCC 474, Raikha Murarka, Raikha Murarka versus State. Supreme Court held a victim-centric approach that allows for greater participation of victim in the conduct of trial can go a long way in plucking such gaps. Some significant role should be given to the victim's counsel while assisting the prosecution. While doing so, the immigrant scheme of CRPC should not be tampered with and the prime role of the public prosecutor should not be DiLU 10. The Supreme Court has further proceeded to say, even if the prosecutor has, in fact, this is the case in which the role of the public prosecutor and the apathy of the public prosecutor has also been discussed by the honorable Supreme Court. The public prosecutor is doing something purposely and he is not putting relevant suggestions. What is the remedy available? Supreme Court has further observed, if the victim's counsel finds that the prosecutor has not examined a witness properly and not incorporated his suggestions either, he may bring certain questions to the notice of the court. If the judge finds merit in the same, he may take an action accordingly by invoking his powers under section 311 CRPC or section 165 of the Evidence Act. So this is the power given to the private counsel who is assisting the prosecution to request the court to invoke these provisions to fill up the gap, if any. Another important decision of the honorable Supreme Court, 2016, 3 SCC 136, 2016, 3 SCC 136, Pujapal versus Union of India. It's a closet case. How an university case is to be conducted? How fair a trial has to be conducted? How the scope of article 21 has to be met? And how the trial court has to take note of trial, not only trial court and the constitutional court should take note of the grievance of the complainant, Emily Victim, has been discussed elaborately in this case. This is a case in which an MLA was done to death in a broad daylight by the defeated MLA and his brother, who was a sitting MP of the state. Then both of them were prosecuted. Unusually, since both of them are powerful persons, the complaint was not investigated properly, some slips out investigation was done and final report was filed. When the complainant victim, Emily, the wife of the deceased was raising even cry everywhere before the state and central. No action was taken. Finally, he has moved the honorable Supreme Court. The Supreme Court judgment ended by Hon. Justice Amiradabha Rai. A beautiful judgment. Supreme Court has thoroughly examined the law on the subject and ordered for, in that case, the entire trial was over. At that stage, the Supreme Court intervened and ordered for CB investigation to create faith in the mind of the affected party. This is the classic judgment. We can refer it in all the cases wherever fair trial was not conducted or no fair investigation was conducted, or wherever there is a need for transfer of investigations, a classic judgment by the Hon. Supreme Court. Then last one, 2019, two SCC 752, I have already referred, the Malli Arjun Kodakali, only Malli Arjun Kodakali was a state. The scope of 372 has been taken note of. That is, no leave is needed for the purpose of filing appeal against the order or for enhancement of compensation or against the order passed for conviction of lesser offenses. These are all the provisions. Then, get another full pen judgments of judgment of Durkan, 2014, 3 MWN, 2014, 3 MWN, criminal, 230, SANTU, SCN, TU, SANTU, MAHTO, VESA state. The Supreme Court has recognized the right of private party under 301 and 302. Then, 2001 criminal law journal 912, the division bench, the right to conduct prosecution is set under 225. When that was challenged before, constitutionality was challenged before the division bench. The Rajasthan division bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that 225 is constitutionally valid and the Supreme Court division bench has held that 225 is constitutionally valid and not offended by article 21 of the constitution. The state alone conduct the prosecution. State never lose or win in any case. This was the law laid down by the Hon. Supreme Court. Then, next, sentencing policy. Even in the course of the trial, the accused is entitled to plead for lesser sentence under section 235-2 under 245 subclass II CRPC. There is no chance for the victim to agitate his right at the time of imposing sentence on the accused. In fact, CRPC was amended under section 265-C CRPC. At the time of plea bargaining, the accused, complainant victim is also entitled to represent through council before granting relief to the accused. So, the amendment was introduced in 2003. As far as victim's sentencing policy is concerned, the Supreme Court has considered in very many cases that appropriate punishment in commensurate with the gravity of the crime should be awarded. In fact, we have seen in 304A cases, only fine was imposed by the courts in India and this practice was also strongly lubricated by the Hon. Supreme Court in 2005 SCC 82. But even PO Act can't be invoked for 304A. So, appropriate sentence has to be given is the view taken by the Hon. Yet another judgment is 2007 SCC 75. The main purpose of the sentence is that the accused must realize that he has committed an act which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part but is also harmful to his own future. Similarly, 2013 11 SCC 382, 2013 11 SCC 382, Swamon v. S. St. of Kerala, 2018, 2012 12 8 SCC 357, St. of UP v. Sanjay Kumar, 2012 8 SCC 734, Guru Basavaraj v. St. of St. So, these are all the judgments in which Supreme Court has held that imposition of appropriate punishment on the criminal is the response of the courts to the society's cry for justice. So, this was the view made by the Hon. Supreme Court. And next comes the compensation to the victims. Justice remains incomplete without adequate compensation. In fact, 357 was inadequate, in fact, to meet the existing contingencies. Therefore, the law has been omitted. The reason for the compensation scheme is that the grievance of the victim should be repaired. And we have gradually changed our sentencing policy in mid 1960s from retribution to restitution. So, the grievance of the complaint also to be met. And we have adopted a new victimological oriented jurisprudence in the course of time. This position has been well discussed by the Hon. Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. St. This is the first Hari Singh v. Supir Singh, 1988 4 SCC 551, 1988 4 SCC 551. Then, 1996 1 SCC 490, 1996 1 SCC 490, the jurisdiction to pay interim compensation shall be treated to be part of overall jurisdiction of the courts trying the offence against the basic human rights. So, interim compensation can be awarded even before the trial is concluded. Similar review was taken in 1995 1 SCC page number 14. There are other penal laws, there are other judgments which says that adequate compensation to be awarded while disposing of the criminal case irrespective of the acutal or conviction. The grievance of, in fact, if you take the section 357A2C, whether victim is traced out or the accused is traced out or not, wherever there is the grievance to the victim, that should be adequately compensated is the view taken under section 357A2C. Similar review was reiterated. You please read 2013 3 MWN criminal, 2013 3 MWN criminal 373, Delhi 40 names Satya Pragas vs. Stain, a classic case wherein the law on the subject has been extensively discussed by the Delhi High Court. Then 2012 3 SCC, 2012 3 SCC, 221, 2012 8 SCC, 721, 1998 7 SCC, 392. In this case, 1998 7 SCC, 392, Supreme Court has gone to the extent of saying even the wages earned by the accused are convict in the course of this incarnation should be paid to the family of the victim. This is what the law laid down by the honorable Supreme Court. Then we have come to the last part of the discussion. All these development of law arose out of the declaration made by the United Nation in the year on 29 November 1985. For my sake and your sake, I request you to bear with me. I would read what are the guidelines given by the United Nation. You can easily find out how this was taken care of by the UN. One, the victim, if he is dead, his legal representatives shall have the right to be implanted as a party in every criminal proceeding where the offense is punishable up to seven years or more. Punishable with seven years or more. Two, the appropriate government can notify the approved voluntary organization to get implanted in the court proceedings in selected cases. Three, the victim has a right to be represented by an advocate of his choice provided that an advocate shall be provided at the cost of the state if the victim is not in a position to afford a lawyer. Four, the victim shall be allowed to produce oral and documentary evidences with the leave of the court or to seek directions for protection of such evidences. Five, the victim shall be permitted to put questions to the witnesses or to suggest to the court questions which may be put to the witnesses. Six, the victim shall be informed about the status of the investigation and to move the court to issue direction for further investigation on certain matters or supervisory officer to ensure effective and proper investigation. Seven, the victim shall be heard in respect of grant or cancellation of bail. Eight, the victim shall be heard when our prosecution seeks to withdraw to offer and to offer to continue the prosecution under 321. The victim has not at all been heard in respect of withdrawal of prosecution under 321 is concerned. Then nine, the victim shall be allowed to advance arguments after the prosecutor has submitted the arguments. Then 10, to participate in the negotiation leading to settlement of calm, vulnerable offenses. To some extent this is being implemented. Then 11, victim shall have a right to prefer and appeal. This has been implemented by way of section 372. These are all the guidelines given in the declaration of the United Nations. My opinion in respect of this victim grievances four in number. First, furnishing information at the investigation and trial stages to the victim is imperative. Two, facilitating the victim to take active part in the criminal justice delivery system. Three, providing monetary relief and compensation adequately is necessary. Even though section 377 ABC says May, it should be construed a cell involved law laid down by the honorable Supreme Court. So that compensation should be adequate to meet the last cost. Then last one, extending support services such as providing legal aid, counseling, medical aid and rehabilitation measures are very much imperative in respect of the victims are concerned. This is the four issues which I want to highlight for kindling your thoughts. Then ultimately, you may wondering how these things are possible in our country. It is possible. Even in France and Germany, they have been following the system. So the victim are entitled to participate right from the date of the complaint till the end of the case. He has every right to participate in the course of the investigation. He has every right to participate in the course of the time of sentencing or even at the time of trial or even at the time of determining the compensation. At every stage, the victim is entitled to participate on par with the prosecutor. So this law is already prevailing in the countries like France. So otherwise, there is no purpose in neglecting an important stakeholder of every criminal trial. For victim's sake, only the case is being tried. So in this absence, everything has taken place. What is the use in it? One has to go with the brooding sense of insecurity and injustice. Therefore, he must be given opportunity. In fact, this position has been well explained by Honorable Mr. Justice P. N. Pragas in an article reported in 2019, 5 CTC-96, 2019, 5 CTC-96 in general section. And finally, I would say that there are provisions available in the post-coact, similarly in the SEST Act. In these two enactments, even though those two enactments also do not fully take note of the grievance of the victim, to some extent, the participation of the victim is clearly set out under section 15 of the SEST Act. No order, no order, any kind of injury or final order during the course of the trial shall be passed without hearing the complainant or victim. So this was the amendment induced. Similarly, in the post-coact, there are very many provisions. Even section 20, I think section 25 says that how 24 and 25, how the statement should be recorded and whose presence should be recorded, that it should be recorded only by the woman police officer, not in uniform and flying cloths. And it should be, 16 words should be taken immediately by the nearest magistrate. And the entire final report, the police report file under 1732, should be furnished to the victim. Yes, it is being given to the accused under 207. So with this, I want to come because time is up. My view is that there must be some efforts to be taken to concentrate on the victimological jurisprudence. Then only the grievance of the victim will be met. I conclude by saying that if the complainant or victim is allowed to participate in the investigation and trial stage, like in civil suits, it would definitely reduce the rise in the crime rate. I hope because when accused has a feeling that he has to face not only the prosecutor and also the private counsel, then it will have some impact on the mind of the accused also. Because as a lawyer in the criminal side, I have experienced that whenever petition to intervene has been filed, even at the stage of where you are anticipated bail, it gives a different impact in the mind of the defense lawyer. Therefore, with this, I hope and I persuade all of you to take note that the complainant and victim is also part of the other side of the criminal trial and gives grievance also to be considered effectively. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yeah. Mr. Bandogaran, you're right. I have also seen this aspect that whenever let's assume you are from the repairing for the complainant or the victim. In that case, the result of the bail is slightly different than what is normally where there is no representation on behalf of the complainant. Yeah. And meanwhile, we will take the questions. Prajita, does right to appeal include right to seek cancellation of bail? Yes, sir. 4.39. 4.392 clearly says that it can be, sir. And this is by Panchkesha. While framing charges, no notice is issued to the victim. Is this procedure correct? Yes. On today, the complainant or victim has no say at the time of framing charges. Yes, I said already after giving a complaint, his role will come into play only when he is someone to give evidence, sir. Agdesh is right to suspend the sentence of accused or quashing a case on ground of compromise and rape cases when honorable Supreme Court has explicitly prohibited such compromises in number of judgments. Yes, sir. So, it is totally illegal, sir. It is totally, Supreme Court has made it clear that cases of serious nature, namely murder, rape or attempt to rape are very serious nature and it can't be done. There is a full pen judgment of, larger pen judgment of Punjab and Haryana also. 2007, 4 CTC, 769 or something, sir. Larger pen judgment, 7 judges held that law completely discussed and it is not possible, sir. Kulwansingh, Kulwansingh's case. Of course, I would not remember the name, sir. It should be Kulwansingh, 5 judges. Yes, sir. Section 12 of the Legal Services Naughty Act provides for right of legal aid to victims but same is not applied by the courts or informed to the victims. Whether trial gets initiated on account of this fact? No, no, no, sir. Trial is not initiated because trial is governed by code of CRPC. CRPC says only limited role, limited role for the private advocate under section 301, 302. So, non-compliance of the legal aid will not be shared the trials. This is, please explain what options the victim has if closure report has been accepted and case has been closed. Yes, there are two options. One, when the complaint, the closer report is made, accepted without notice to the party, that closer report can state the way be questioned before the underplay code, either under 482 or under 397. And it can be set aside. There are number of judgments to that effect. So, the closer report can be set aside and it can be remitted back to the trial code to enable the Leonard trial judge, the trial magistrate, to give an opportunity of hearing to the victim before acting on it. That is one option. Second option, assuming that the closer report is accepted, you can maintain a first private complaint before the court. There is no legal agreement, you can maintain. Yeah, this is in certain cases for offenses like a 323 IPC. The magistrate only gives a free pipe sentence of fine alone. What is your opinion on this? You can file an appeal against that under section 372 Puraviso. If fine alone is given, because even though it is a very important question, because 372 doesn't say that appeal against inner degrees of sentence is maintainable. Appeal is as per Puraviso against acutal or conviction for lesser offense or for this inner degrees of compensation, appeal is maintainable. But my view is that it is only an inadvertent omission by the legislature in not including the appeal against for lesser sentence. So, that can be also filed by way of 372. There is no legal work. So far, there is no legal position as evolved in that, but still appeal is maintainable is my view. Probably it is an inadvertent omission by the legislature or the famous of the court. If any order is passed in absence of the complaint, but her advocate is present due to emergency home to approach in a TV case, but case is not for divorce. It can be restored, sir. It's almost like a civil case. In fact, very recently, the Madras High Court has taken the view that DVC is almost like a civil proceeding, sir, because it can be filed before district Munshi Court, it can be filed for family court, or it can be filed before magistrate court, or it can be filed even before the family court in which HMOP was pending. So by legal fiction, it is treated only as a civil case. So even assuming that it is not restored, you can file another case. There is no legal bars, sir. That judgment was all by the name of Kulwinder Singh. That is 2007. 2007, yes, sir, larger bench judgment, sir. 2007, volume 3 RCR criminal, 105 group. Yes, sir. Thank you. So we have no other questions. I think Mr. Nagamattu has joined. I will ask him to share his experience. Sir, kindly unmute if you have logged in. Yes. And your video also. It's a pleasure connecting with you. Yes. Yes, sir. So we will ask you to summarize whatever you have done. They say a good person can summarize 2 hours session in 5 minutes. Good evening, Mr. Manavaran. Sorry, it was really a wonderful lecture. I had the full benefit of hearing your lecture from the beginning till the end. You have covered the entire subject very elaborately without leaving out any portion of the criminal law which it deals with the rights of the victims. And in fact, you have cited almost all the important judgments touching upon the rights of the victims. I say wholeheartedly that I am greatly benefited by your lecture. I am also hopeful that those who are watching this lecture would have also got greatly benefited like me. It is really, really a good lecture. And only one thing to supplement your lecture, I want to tell you that recently the Supreme Court in Uruguay's case, you know the judgment. I know that you had a discussion about the judgment, that you have not highlighted the judgment though you mentioned about it. The Supreme Court under section 173H while interpreting has now given the right to the complainant or the victim to offer further investigation. What was the law before the Uruguay's case authored by Hanuman Jayas, the F. S. Nariman once, that the power to ask for, I am sorry, right to ask for further investigation under 173H was only with the investigating officer. Now the scope of 173H has been extended by the Hanuman Supreme Court. Now for this judgment, if the victim feels that the investigation has not been done properly, he can very well approach the very same court with an application under 173H and 173H seeking further investigation. You please such right have been now declared the infero that you as well. The reason I feel to this section the judgment is a very good judgment because the scope has been widened of section 173H. Right to have fair investigation is a fundamental right under Article 21. So thorough investigation is not meant only to benefit the accused. It is to ultimately do justice to the parties which includes the victims of crimes as well. The reason why the Hanuman Supreme Court has now held by this part breaking judgment that victim can make an application, the accused can also make an application as well so that they lead to the same court. Before that judgment what was happening was you know very well that the victims were forced to go to the High Court and forward it to after the Supreme Court and Article 32 asking for such a direction. Now this judgment enables the parties to go to the trial court itself. This is a welcome trend but one portion of the judgment we can't we find it difficult to persuade ourselves that is the judgment restricts the time up to which we can make such an application is still the time when charges are framed. So when charges are framed there after such an application cannot be made under 173H either by the police or by the victim as well as by the accused. This section of the judgment requires a reconciliation that a part you have greatly referred to Bhagawan Singh case of 1985 which gives which mandates or makes it an obligation on the part of the court issue notice to the complainant. But there the word victim is not used in the judgment. Anyhow by our understanding during the electric period we say that notice is to be issued to the victims. The only thing which needs to be clarified is suppose there are five people who are injured in a particular crime a complaint is made by only one all the others would be cited only as witnesses. In that case if negative report is filed notice goes only to the man who made the complaint who laid the complaint with the police. He may not take any action he may not even intimate the same with other victims. So the victim the other victims who are the actual sufferers may not be in a position to make a petition. So this area still remains a gray area. We do not know whether the magistrate has to issue notice to all the victims or selectively for one or two or only to the de facto comment this area refers needs to be clarified by the honorable Supreme Court further. Then in respect of compensation you rightly said referring to section 357A as well as section 357 which was already in in force. This is not effectively implemented. This is not effectively put into use is our feeling and in fact this is grievance as you rightly said this provision the chapter this chapter that is 357A and all go unnoticed by the trial courts and the verdicts. Though repeatedly the courts the higher courts have been holding or insisting or trying to impress upon the trial courts to utilize this chapter. This is seldom this grievance that you highlighted is really good and one more thing also we should take note of that on a 357A it is for the state government to frame necessary rules that is funds for the creating a corpus in many states I understand I do not know what is the position as of now in Tamil Nadu also though the section was introduced in 2009 the rule was introduced only somewhere in 2015 I think so Manavaran may correct me. Yes only after the law judgment rule was there. Yes 2015 I think it was in 2015 so in many other states such rules are not brought into force and corpus has not been created. This also needs to be looked into. Luckily you gave four areas where improvement used to be made in conclusion of your speech I welcome that I welcome that now as you rightly said the movement complaint the information is large for the police case is registered and doctors state whether the appropriate penal permissions are incorporated in the affair or to favor the accused only available sections have been incorporated or not so the complaint does not know about all these things when bail application is moved as you said actually may he is not put on notice then during trial if he is not examined he himself is not examined or if some cited witnesses are not examined he has got no say at that stage and when the final report is final if the report he is not either fully or partially negative report Bhagwan Singh is not applicable therefore there are no no notice the defects in the investigation are not known to the complainant or the victims during trial he is asked to give only evidence and he is not appraised up as to who are all the other witnesses who are going to be examined and what they are going to say these are all really flaws as you rightly highlighted on this these are all really flaws now I think that the minister of the union government has formed a committee in a hurried manner that committee is trying to bring about bring some suggestions for amending the CRTC and the other penal law that is wait whether they take some steps in this or not but despite all these things let us not send a message to the people that the victims of crimes have got more role at all to play from the time of crime till the conclusion or till the matter reaches the penalty may be true that the victim cannot go to the trial court cannot go to the police and all that but a higher jury is always ready under 482 jurisdiction 226 jurisdiction 227 jurisdiction that is constitutional provisions or under 32 before the Supreme Court the victims can very well work out remedies right from the beginning right from the beginning that is from from the time I think the affair is registered suppose the affair is not registered what to do there is no provision 154 enabling the complainant to or the victim to to get any kind of relief we do it in 482 we do it in 156 we do it under other provisions 226 and other provisions also likewise during the court's investigation also if the investigation is not taken forward in the right direction the accused the victim is not helpless he can very well work out his remedies by invoking 482 and other provisions which I have just noted you can go to the higher jurisdiction and similarly during trial also suppose a public prosecutor proves himself to be either inefficient or taking sides with the accused a victim has got right always to go for changing the prosecutor and you know very well that under the SCST act he has got a choice of choosing a person to act as special public prosecutor that is another innovative development made so there also you can do and during trial suppose some witnesses are not examined those section 311 cannot be invoked by him that is the complainant I think that scope of 311 used to be extended expanded but 311 does not restrict there are two parts in section 311 it does not restrict giving right only to the prosecutor under 311 also he can make an application it is by way of bringing to the notice of the court that these are all the important evidences which have been left behind by the prosecutor it is actually even it is the obligation of the court and as per the second part of 311 to someone knows witnesses to someone who allows the same to be proved in court so that is also available now we have got your bones judgment is given the date of judgment is not intimated you highlighted that so the date of judgment used to be intimated people come to know of the judgment only from press and media electronic media they are not put on notice but as you said that limitation period is put against the defector complainant as well so one more development can be made at least by judgment law that the date of judgment may be notified to the informant at least if not to all the victim at least to the informant the date of judgment may be notified by any method which is available quickly for the court so this this this will be a welcome amendment which we may suggest data for judgment then after the data judgment the free copy of the judgment is not given to the victim we were giving free copy of the judgment to the accused we should not give you a free copy to the complainant as well to the victim also so free copy may be furnished to him if he asks for at least now nowadays judges have got here can I take few more minutes Mr. Karth? That's sure we are all right you keep prepared the cake you have put the icing and the cherry on the top okay okay see the now nowadays judges have added some kind of fashion to write judgments for 300 pages 400 pages putting into that all their philosophies which are totally irrelevant but the he has to pay free stamp for every page of the judgment it becomes costlier so when you allow free copy to be given to the accused mandatorily please allow the complainant also to take a free copy from the court now he has to make an application the two along with an affidavit he has to pay stamp duty then only he'll be then try to get a copy right so this area may these are all small procedural matters so this this thing can also be done now this leave business there is a lot of confusion Mr. Manoharan rightly referred to that Kodagali's case so Kodagali has further confused in my view with great respect it has further confused Malikarjan Kodagali Malikarjan Kodagali whether leave is to be obtained or not is not the dictum laid down there so it is only a passing remark therefore they cannot be treated as a long lay down in my view the subject is still open for the supreme court to decide whether an appeal so Madras I quote Mr. Manoharan point out Madras is a full bin judgment as against the judgment of Akutil by a magistrate the question is appeal lies where if it is a case instituted on a police report undoubtedly appeal lies to the court of session if it is by means of private complaint appeal lies where I think full court say Madras full bin said that it is to be only in the high court is it not only to the high court 378 after getting leave suppose the why should this disparity already he feels aggrieved his case or not properly projected by the prosecution that is the reason why he files a private complaint that is why it happens so let us say that there is a case and counter before the magistrate when he is instituted on the police police report other by a private complaint both cases are akutil let us say that both cases end in akutil then appeal are the incidents of the way the people who are the victims in the police case they've got right to file an appeal in the session scope but this appeal has to go only to the high court now it is too well settled by this time that when there is a case and counter case both thought we tried by the one and the same court there are a lot of things you know that Buraj's case where the evidence record in one case should not be referred to in the other case but 2000 yes one single legal brain should be there in both the cases so all these things are a problem but anyhow the younger generation of lawyers and eminent lawyers like Mr. Manoharan who will take care of we're all old people so we will we will do the best but after all we are all trying to protect three important valuable constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights article 14 article 19 article 21 of course article 20 22 also so our effort is to give equality to you equal protection of only loss to the people whether their victims are accused to that extent and to achieve that end we have to take the law forward thank you Mr. Manoharan and your lecture was really good really good I congratulate you we got this thank you I am really blessed I am really blessed thank you Vinupai Vinupai case is reported in 2019 17 sec page one yeah 2019 17 sec page one in fact I got missed it Mila no about that judgment we got our own reservation probably that's the reason why you very difficult where the actual law has been discussed and laid it on the issues along with Mr. Manoharan I am reminded of the book of Justice Rivendran Army Rivendran who had just learned and otherwise he had a lot of articles written where in he had written anomalies in law and justice yes so he has taken certain webinars also on that he has tweeted also on those issues I was just reminded we took one session with Justice Rivendran where he had taken anomalies in law and justice so the way you you both have pinpointed on the aspects of under the criminal jurisprudence that where are the anomalies and where we can actually carry forward what suggestions the law mission can take into consideration and as they say that first you discuss then it becomes a thought process and eventually sometimes the law it becomes so we are quite sure that probably one day what anomalies are being pinpointed maybe as Justice Nagamattu has said that sometimes it's a judgment law direction issued under 142 we have seen in Vishakha and a lot of judgments we hope that such anomalies would be actually being plugged in and like Mr. Manoharan was also saying to the effect that where the victim is being represented or a complainant is being represented the fate of the case we have seen that rate of conviction is much higher the decisions on bails are slightly different because I would not say that the state council but state council is sometimes also tight pressed because of the number of briefs he's handling because there's always a lawyer who is representing the complainant or a victim so thank you friends for all the insights and we are more we are grateful to just you may also discuss how about the recent concept of house arrest today one of the issues being discussed was I was just reading the bar and bench the advocate general has taken a plea that first you have to discuss the preliminary issue as to whether the DB could have the jurisdiction to take into consideration that matter now that matter is better than the matter of CBI whether it could be taken up as per Oster like one of the judges has said that it is a matter before a single bench he has raised a preliminary objection that since it could not have been gone to the division bench there was no occasion for formulating the five judges judgment so that particular aspect Mr. Tushar Mata and the advocate general will be addressing tomorrow at 11 30 so let's see it will open new vistas for the mind thought processes of under the criminal jurisprudence and also otherwise where it will be an issue to be discussed and they say as the number of issues are discussed it's also a treat to the mind of the legal minds to understand certain aspects where such issues are raised so before we part for the day friends tomorrow do connect with us on a session on section five read with section 14 of the limitation act by justice Katie Sankaran tomorrow at 4 30 and justice Mr. Manohkaran's session was tremendous and the imports later on pitched in by Mr. Nagamatoo it is it is just like as we say in cricket that if there is a player like Tendulkar when you are outside other side is within the you can just have a treat of a match and it is worth watching it was also a treat not only for the mind but also for the legal harsh to understand that thank you to both of you and thank you to all those participants who have been watching us live on the facebook youtube and on this platform before we'll part we will request justice Nagamatoo on this platform that we will have like to have a session from him his sessions do tremendously well and it's always stimulating not only to the mind but also to me it also ignites the right sparks in the legal minds everyone stay safe stay blessed as like Mr. Manohkaran said, kindly keep on wearing masks do your vaccination is not done and also maintain social distancing. Jai Hind Namaskar. Thank you everyone.