The guidelines mandating victim compensation procedures caused undue delays, violating the accused's right to a speedy trial; roles of trial courts and the State Legal Services Authority must remain distinct and clear per statutory mandates.

AFJUDGMENT :

REKHA PALLI, J.

1. This Larger Bench has been constituted upon the orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice pursuant to the order dated 05.08.2021 passed in W.P.(CRL) 1054/2021 & CRL.M.B. 722/2021. Vide the said order, the learned Single Judge, while taking note of the inordinate delay in passing of orders on sentence as a result of the implementation of the directions issued vide the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal 352/2003 titled “ Karan v. State of NCT of Delhi ”, observed that any modification of the directions issued by the Full Bench could be considered only by a Full Bench and, therefore, directed that the matter be placed before a Full Bench for modification of the guidelines issued in Karan (supra). Consequently, a Full Bench was constituted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 27.08.2021. The Full Bench so constituted, after considering the submissions of the parties, on 26.04.2024, directed that subject to orders of Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice, the matter be listed before a Larger Bench. It is in these circumstances that this Larger Bench has been constituted.

2. We may begin by noting that in Karan (supra), the Full Bench upon consideration of the provisions of Sections 357 and 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) (now Sections 395 and 396 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS )) for assessment and payment of victim compensation, issued directions laying down the detailed procedure to be followed by Trial Courts for assessing the quantum of victim compensation payable under Section 357 , Cr.P.C.. Vide the directions so issued, the Full Bench not only prescribed the steps to be taken by the Trial Court after passing of order on conviction but also laid down the timeframe within which each of these steps must be completed before an order on sentence is passed.

3. It is also pertinent to note that on 03.06.2021, the learned Single Judge while dealing with W.P.(Crl) 1054/2021 and BAIL APPLN. 1959/2021 wherein bail was being sought noted that several similar cases were coming up before this Court, wherein, persons who already stand convicted were seeking bail on account of no order on sentence having been passed by the Trial Court. Consequently, reports were sought from the DSLSA regarding adherence to the time period and submission of Victim Impact Reports (hereinafter “VIRs”) to the Trial Court as per the directions issued in Karan (supra).Vide its report dated 20.06.2021, the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (hereinafter “DSLSA”) informed the Court that in compliance with the directions of this Court in Karan (supra), a detailed Standard Operation Procedure (SOP),"Proceedings for Assistance of Compensation Computation in view of the Judgment in Criminal Appeal 352/2003 Titled " Karan v. State of NCT of Delhi " (“PAC-C Protocol”), had been prepared laying down the procedure to be followed for determining victim compensation after conviction of the accused.

4. According to the guidelines on which the SOP of DSLSA is based, upon the pronouncement of judgment on conviction and supply of a copy thereof to the convict, 10 days is being granted to the convict/accused to submit his affidavit detailing his financial capacity to pay compensation to the victim. In its report, the DSLSA also pointed out that this period was often being extended beyond 10 days due to various reasons, including non- availability of a copy of the conviction order, inadequate legal representation for the convict, and absence o