STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus KULDIP SINGH

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 1137 · Decided: 21-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STA TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
v. 
KULDIP SINGH 
JUNE 21, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 482. 
A 
B 
Notification-Special ex-gratia relief to victim of terrorist action by 
Security Forces-Relief and medical expenses granted to respondent-victim-
Filing of petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. demanding compensation-High Court C 
directing the State to pay to petitioner a further amount of Rs. 80,0001-0n 
appeal, held, in terms of the notification, limited special ex-gratia relief 
being granted to victim of terrorist action by the Security Forces-Thus, 
victim cannot make any claim higher than the limit so fu:ed in terms of the 
notification-Besides claim of compensation u/s 482 is misconceived-Further, D 
· the victim was also given employment by the State Government-However, 
medical expenses paid is low compared to normal expenses-Accordingly, 
the State Government is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 17,0001- towards 
medical expenses in addition to the sum already paid as ex-gratia in terms 
of the notification. 
Respondent was hurt during the ambush in terrorist chase on 7. 7.1993 
when he was visiting a relative in the night The police started shooting several 
bullets hitting his right forearm which was blown off. He was taken to the 
hospital where the right arm below elbow was amputated. Thereafter he had 
E 
to undergo another surgery as he had developed abscess. He was paid a special 
ex-gratia relief of Rs. 20,000/- in terms of the notification providing for ex- F 
gratia relief to the victim of terrorist action by the Security Forces acting in 
civil power and also a sum of Rs.3, 378/- as medical expenses. After about 10 
years, he had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. demanding 
compensation of rupee 3 lacs. The High Court allowed the petition by awarding 
to the petitioner a further amount of Rs, 80,000/-. Hence the present appeal. G 
Appellant-State contended that since the amount paid was fixed in terms 
of the notification, the High Court 's direction for payment is clearly 
unsustainable. 
1137 
H 
ll38 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondent-victim submitted that the amount was given as a purely 
B 
palliative measure and, therefore, there was no restriction on the High Court's 
power to award compensation; and that the amount awarded for medical 
expenses is petty. 
' 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. The notification dated 18.1.1991 issued by the State 
Government makes the position clear that it was paid as "special ex-gratia 
grant". The limit was also fixed. Therefore, the question of the responding 
making any claim in terms of the notification for a higher amount does not 
C arise. Additionally, the respondent was not claiming compensation in a writ 
petition but under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and such a cliam is misconceived. 
Additionally, the claim was made IO years after the amount fixed by the 
Government had been paid to him. It is also not in dispute that the respondent 
has been-appointed as a Chowkidar in a government school. Therefore, strictly 
D speaking, in terms of the notification nothing further is to be paid to the 
respondent. But the medical expenses paid are certainly low compared to the 
normal expenses which appear to have been spent for the operations and 
treatment. Accordingly, the quantum at Rs. 20,000/- is fixed. The same is in 
addition to the fixed sum already paid by way of ex-gratia compensation under 
the notification. Though there was a belated claim, in view of the peculiar 
E circumstances of the case, the belated approach is not treated to be fatal. 
F 
Accordingly, an additional sum of Rs. 17,000/- shall be paid by the State 
Government to the respondent within two months. (Para 71 (1140-D-GI 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1295 of 
2002. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 10.05.2002 of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Misc. No. 25991-M of 200 I. 
Gangandeep Sharma and Ajay Pal for the Appellants . 
. G 
Collin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., Jyoti Mendiratta for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. l. The State of Punjab and its functionaries 
question the correctness of the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the 
H Punjab and Harayna High Court. On a petition under Section 482 of the Code 
\ 
~· 
) 
... 
.. 
STATE OF PUNJABv. KULDIPSINGH [PASAYAT.J.) 
1139 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in shor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.