1

PLEA BARGAIN

Submitted by

GROUP 8

Group Members

Akashdeep Gupta(10P185)

Anurag Agarwal (10P191)

Eklavya Malik (10P198)

Kaniz Aeliya (10P205)

Pinak Mukherjee (10P218)

Rakinderjit Singh (10P225)

2

Contents

1. Introduction 2. Historical background of Plea Bargain 3. Indian concept of Plea Bargaining 4. Indian Law on Plea Bargaining (Applicability, Procedure and Disposal) 5. Salient aspects of the concept of Plea Bargaining 6. Plea Bargaining and it’s Outcome: Statistics 7. Advantages and Disadvantages of Plea Bargaining 8. Cases 9. Conclusions 10. References

3

Plea Bargain

1) Introduction

‘Plea Bargaining’ can be defined as the process by which the defendant relinquishes his/her right to

go to trial in exchange for a reduction in charge and/or sentence. It is based on a model predicated

on negotiated dispositions rather than adversarial combat.

It can also be defined as pre-trial negotiations between the accused and the prosecution during

which the accused agrees to plead guilty in exchange for certain concessions by the prosecution.

The Wikipedia Encyclopaedia defines it as to make an agreement in which the defendant(s) pleads

guilty to a lesser charge and the prosecutor(s) in return drops more serious charges. The object of

‘Plea Bargaining’ is to reduce the risk of undesirable orders for the either side. Another reason for

the introducing the concept of ‘Plea Bargaining’ is the fact that most of the criminal courts are over

burdened and hence unable to dispose off the cases on merits. Criminal trial can take day, weeks,

months and sometimes years while guilty pleas can be arranged in minutes. In other words, a ‘Plea

Bargaining’ is a deal offered by the prosecutor to induce the defendant to plead guilty.

Generally, a plea bargain allows the parties to agree on the outcome and settle the pending charges

there are two kinds of plea bargaining, as endorsed in International jurisprudence. i.e., Express and

implicit plea bargaining. Express bargaining occurs when an accused or his lawyer negotiates directly

with a prosecutor or a trial judge concerning the benefits that may follow the entry of a plea of

guilty. Implicit bargaining, on the other hand, occurs without face-to face negotiations.

‘Plea Bargaining’ can be of three types. Charge bargain, Sentence bargain and Fact bargain.

Charge bargain:

Charge bargain happens when the prosecution allows a defendant to plead guilty to a lesser charge

or to only some of the charges framed against him. Prosecution generally has vast discretion in

framing charges and therefore they have the option to charge the defendant with the highest

charges that are applicable. ‘Charge Bargain’ gives the accused an opportunity to negotiate with the

prosecution and reduce the number of charges that may have framed against him.

Sentence bargain:

Sentence bargain happens when an accused or defendant is told in advance what his sentence will

be if he pleads guilty. A sentence bargain may allow the prosecutor to obtain a conviction in the

most serious charge, while assuring the defendant of an acceptable sentence.

Fact bargain:

Fact bargaining happens when a prosecutor agrees not to contest an accused’s version of the

facts or agrees not to reveal aggravating factual circumstances to the court.

Therefore we can safely say that ‘Plea Bargaining’ is nothing but a contract between the prosecution

and the defendant or accused and both the parties are bound by this contract. For most defendants

the principal benefit of plea-bargaining is receiving a lighter sentence than what might result from

4

taking the case to trial and losing. Another benefit which the defendant gets is that they can save a

huge amount of money which they might otherwise spend on advocates. It always takes more time

and effort to bring a case to trial than to negotiate and handle a plea bargain. Incentives for

accepting plea-bargaining, as far as judges and prosecutors are concerned are obvious. Over

crowded courts do not allow the judges to try every case that comes before them. It also reduces

the caseloads of the prosecutors

2) Historical background of Plea Bargain

Plea bargain has its origin in the USA. Before the 1920's, plea bargaining was scarcely acknowledged

to exist in the society. It was described as unfair and inaccurate and even its Constitutionality has

been challenged in Harvard Law Review (1387). Later on, Rule-18 of the bar association approved

standards relating to guilty plea (1968) and recommended for plea of guilty for the accused. The

validity of plea bargaining have been upheld saying that it extends benefit to the accused. In Santa

Bello v New York, the court said that it is essential for the administration of justice and when

properly managed, was to be encouraged. The court should not act as a facilitator of the bargain.

In 1976, even Justice Potter Steward has stated that “The heart and soul of plea bargaining is in the

benefit to all concerned in a criminal case.” At present in USA, the plea bargaining is widely

prevalent; it has become a major part in criminal justice system, it plays the significant role in the

disposal of criminal cases. In criminal justice system of 50 states of USA, over 95% of all criminal

cases are disposed of without a trial, through the entry of a guilty plea.

In their 142nd report the Law Commission of India had made a pragmatic study, discussion and made

recommendation in 1991, for the adoption of the concept of Plea Bargaining. As per the

recommendations of the law commission the scheme has to be applied in phases and after having

settled the preliminary phase, which has been introduced by insertion of chapter XXIA to the code of

criminal procedure, the next phase shall be introduced. Keeping in view the history of development

of the concept of ‘Plea Bargain’ and various amendments introduced to the provision of law, Indian

legislature has taken care of all the negative aspect or negative impact or practice. Under the newly

introduced chapter XXIA to the code of criminal procedure the application of the scheme of ‘Plea

Bargain’ is not wide and for every offence available. Under Indian law all precaution to prevent

misuse or negative impact on the dispensation of criminal justice has been addressed properly

except one dangerous aspect of allowing the police and the prosecutor to participate in the meeting

to work out the satisfactory disposition of the case.

3) Indian concept of Plea Bargaining

The Indian concept of Plea Bargaining is inspired from the Doctrine of Nolo Contendere. The doctrine

has been under consideration by India for introduction and employment in the Criminal Justice

System. Indian Criminal Justice System has been ineffective in providing speedy and economical

justice. Because Courts are flooded with astronomical arrears, the trial life span is inordinately long

and the expenditure is very high. Subsequently majority of cases are arising from criminal

jurisdiction and the rate of conviction is very low.

5

Recently the Government of India has accepted the Doctrine of Nolo Contendere or Plea Bargaining

on the Recommendations of the Law Commission. Doctrine of Nolo Contendere has been considered

in a manner according to social and economical conditions prevailing in the country. Appropriate

amendment has been incorporated in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The new concept of Plea

Bargaining will be fruitful in resolving pending criminal cases and under trial in jails for years. The

Committee on Criminal Justice Reforms, headed by a former Chief Justice of the Karnataka and

Kerala High Courts and former member of the National Human Rights Commission of India, Justice

V.S. Mali math (‘Mali math Committee’), submitted its report to the Government of India’s Ministry

of Home Affairs in March 2003. In its report, the Mali math Committee recommended that a system

of plea-bargaining be introduced into the criminal justice system of India to facilitate the earlier

resolution of criminal cases and reduce the burden on the courts (Recommendation 106). The Mali

math Committee endorsed the recommendations previously made by the Law Commission of India,

as contained in the Law Commission’s 142nd and 154th reports, on the form that such a system of

plea-bargaining should take.

The Law Commission’s recommendations in this respect are comprehensive and essentially sound. A

new Chapter (Chapter XXI A) on Plea Bargaining has been inserted in the Criminal Procedure Code

1973. A notification to bring into effect the new provision has been issued and it has come into

effect from 5th July, 2006. Plea Bargaining was introduced through the Criminal Law (Amendment)

Act, 2005 which was passed by Parliament in the winter session of 2005. “When one’s own legal

system flounders, one naturally looks towards practices in other countries, which seem to provide

the solution. Statistics as regards the criminal justice system in India are startling in 2001; the

number of inmates housed in Indian jails was almost 1, 00,000 more than their capacity. It was

estimate that 70.5% of all inmates were under trials and of this 0.6% had been detained in jail for

more than 5 years at the end of 2001.”

4) Indian Law on Plea Bargaining (Applicability, Procedure and Disposal)

As noted earlier, in India, the system of plea bargaining is in its experiment stage. The system was

introduced as a result of criminal law reforms introduced in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act,

2005 (Act 2 of 2006). Section 4 of the Amendment Act introduced Chapter XXIA to the Code having

sections 265 A to 265 L. Though the Act was passed in 11th January, 2006, the provisions were

notified and came into effect from 5th July, 2006 only.

Applicability: Section 265 A deals with applicability of the Chapter XXIA. Benefit of Plea bargaining

can be extended in two circumstances.

If a report is forwarded by a Station House Officer of a Police Station after the completion of

investigation to the Magistrate.

If the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence on a complaint under S. 190 (a) followed by

examination of a complainant and witness under S. 200 or S. 202 and issuance of process under

Section 204. Thus, it means, after commencement of proceedings upon a private complaint

under S. 190 (a) of the Code.

However, if the accused is involved in an offence, which is punishable to death, life imprisonment or

of imprisonment more than 7 years, benefit cannot be extended. Apart from that for offences affect

6

socio- economic conditions of the country, which are notified by the Central Government or offences

against woman or offences against a child below the age of fourteen years, benefit of plea

bargaining is not available. Under S. 265 L the provisions of plea bargaining is not applicable to any

Juvenile or Child as defined under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The

Savings provisions under S. 265J has extended an independent existence to the Chapter, in case of

inconsistency with other provisions of the Code.

The following offences are excluded from the preview of the Plea Bargaining:-

Dowry Prohibition Act

The Commission of Sati Prevention Act, 1987

The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986

The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

The Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (regulation of Production,

Supply and Distribution) Act, 1992

Provisions of Fruit Products Order, 1955 (issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955)

Provisions of Meat Food Products Order, 1973 (issued under the Essential Commodities Act,

1955)

Offences with respect to animals that find place in Schedule I and Part II of the Schedule II as

well as offences related to altering of boundaries of protected areas under Wildlife

(Protection) Act, 1972

The SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Offences mentioned in the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955

Offences listed in Sections 23 to 28 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)

Act, 2000

The Army Act, 1950

The Air Force Act, 1950

The Navy Act, 1957

Offences specified in Sections 59 to 81 and 83 of the Delhi Metro Railway (Operation and

Maintenance) Act, 2002

The Explosives Act, 1884

Offences specified in Sections 11 to 18 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act,

1955

Cinematograph Act, 1952

Procedure: As per S. 265 B, the process of plea bargaining starts with an application from accused.

The application is to be filed before the trial court only. The application must be in writing, with brief

description of facts of the case supported with an affidavit sworn by the accused affirming the

genuineness of application as voluntarily submitted with details of previous conviction of the

accused. Upon receipt of application, the trial court has to issue notice to prosecution, either to

public prosecutor or to complainant in S. 190 (a) cases and also to the accused intimating the date of

hearing of application.

7

While appearing before the Court, after receipt of notice from the Court, the examination of the

accused shall be done in-camera, avoiding the presence of other parties. It is specifically required so,

to ensure the genuineness and authority of application. Before proceeding further the Court has to

ensure that the application is made voluntarily by the accused. If the Court feels, after examination

of the accused, the application is involuntarily submitted or the accused is not eligible for plea

bargaining on the ground of earlier conviction in a case charged with same offence, the Court has to

drop the proceedings and proceed further with the Trial from the stage, wherein the application is

entertained by the Court.

After examination of the accused, if the Court feels the eligibility of the accused for plea bargaining,

then proceed further for a settlement, giving time to prosecution and accused to work out a

mutually satisfactory disposition of the case. Such a mutually satisfactory disposition includes

awarding of compensation and other charges and legal expenses to the victim. There must be a

notice to Public Prosecutor (defined under S 2(u) and explained in S. 25 of the Code), Investigation

Officer of the case, victim or de-facto complainant and to the accused, in cases instituted upon

police report, to work out the solution in a joint meeting of the parties.

In cases instituted otherwise than a police report, there shall be notice to the accused and the

complainant/victim to participate in the joint meeting. The accused can be participate with his

Lawyer in the meeting. That means the actual presence of the accused is required irrespective of a

representation through the Lawyer. Apart from that the Court shall to ensure that every actions of

the parties during the meeting is voluntarily made and without any vitiating or coercive elements.

That means the presence of the Judicial Officer is necessary, during the process of joint meeting.

Under S. 265 D, the Court has to prepare a report, if a mutual satisfactory disposition of the case has

been worked out and such report shall be signed by the presiding officer of the Court and the

parties in the Joint Meeting. If no satisfactory disposition is made out, the Court has to proceed with

the case, by dropping the proceedings in plea bargain and start the proceedings from the stage,

wherein the application is entertained.

Disposal of Case on the basis of report: After completion of proceedings under S. 265 D, by

preparing a report signed by the presiding officer of the Court and parties in the meeting, the Court

has to hear the parties on the quantum of the punishment or accused’s entitlement of release on

probation of good conduct or after admonition. Court can either release the accused on probation

under the provisions of S. 360 of the Code or under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or under

any other legal provisions in force, or punish the accused, passing the sentence. While punishing the

accused, the Court, at its discretion, can pass sentence of minimum punishment, if the law provides

such minimum punishment for the offences committed by the accused or if such minimum

punishment is not provided, can pass a sentence of one fourth of the punishment provided for such

offence.

Apart from this, in cases of release or punishment, if a report is prepared under S 265 D, report on

mutually satisfactory disposition, contains provision of granting the compensation to the victim the

Court also has to pass directions to pay such compensation to the victim. The Court has to

pronounce the Judgment, under S. 265 F, in terms of its findings under S. 265 D, either releasing the

accused or punishing the accused. The Judgment passed under S. 265 F is final and no appeal will lie

against such Judgment under Chapter XXIX of the Code. However such Judgments are subject to

8

challenge under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the High Court by filing Writ Petition

and Article 136 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition. A

court, while proceeding with an application of plea bargaining has all the powers invested with a

Court, under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of granting and rejecting bail,

trial of offences and other general matters relating to disposal of case, particularly under provisions

in Chapter XXIV of the Code. An accused, while disposal of his application under plea bargaining, is

entitled for setting off the period of detention from the sentence of imprisonment imposed under S.

265E. He is entitled to a set off the period of detention, he had already undergone in the same case,

during the investigation, inquiry or trial, but before the date of conviction, in compliance of the

provisions of S. 428 only. This provision enables early release of under trial prisoners, who are the

real victims of our delayed judicial process.

Thus the provisions of Chapter XXIA extends the scheme of plea bargaining in the Indian Criminal

Jurisprudence, to a limited extend only, by giving discretion to the Court, restricting excess power to

the prosecution, as seen from International jurisprudence, by giving sufficient measures to prevent

the abuse of process. Though S. 265C does not state about the nature of bargaining, it is a

consolidation of Charge, Sentence and Fact plea-bargaining, as the provision says about the mutual

satisfactory disposition, which has wider connotation to canvass the characteristics of these kinds of

plea bargaining.

5) Salient aspects of the concept of Plea Bargaining

a) The requirement of voluntariness:

In the American context, a ‘voluntary’ plea can be one made either in the absence of coercion or in

the absence of unjustifiable coercion. Strictly ‘no coercion’ would to a certain extent rule out plea

agreements because some form of coercion is needed even to reach a consensus. One must

determine the level of coercion that would be fatal to the plea agreement, especially because the

bargaining power of the parties involved is not always equal. In considering the plea agreement, the

court must acquaint itself with the circumstances leading to the plea, the nature and the background

of the defendant and any other factors that could have motivated him to plead guilty. Though the

Act does not envisage such far-reaching involvement of the judge, one way to inform the court may

be to make these details a mandatory part of the brief description of the case relating to which the

application is filed under Section 265.B(2).

Further, a perusal of the Act shows that there seems to be no provision for the accused to withdraw

his application. Now Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for an accomplice

to be pardoned if he consents to fully disclose the information he possesses. Though the provision is

silent on whether the approver can renege on this promise, it does not mean that he is barred from

doing so. In fact, once the approver has accepted a tender of pardon, he becomes a witness for the

prosecution and a refusal to make full disclosure necessarily implies a forfeit of his pardon. Action

can then be taken against him by virtue of Section 308. Similarly, just because the Act in this case is

silent on the issue of withdrawal, it cannot be assumed that withdrawal is prohibited. It may be

argued that the accused is entitled to withdraw his application and the case would then be subject

to trial. However, the matter is open to a contrary interpretation.

9

b) Degree of involvement of the judge

The extent of involvement of the judge in the plea-bargaining process is debatable because

excessive intervention could compromise his position as a neutral arbiter while no intervention

could lead to an unjust result. It appears that the Act gives the judge limited freedom in awarding

compensation to the victim as the compensation is to be in accordance with the disposition. In

Mithu v. State of Punjab Section 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was struck down as

unconstitutional because it excluded judicial discretion. Though Section 303 refers to the death

penalty, the logic of the unconstitutionality of excluding judicial discretion with respect to serious

matters can be extended to this situation. Therefore, the intention of the legislature may not have

been to completely exclude judicial discretion because that would involve the risk of the provision

being struck down as unconstitutional.

Also, though the court does not have to entertain an application if it is ascertained at the very outset

that the accused did not file it voluntarily, the Act has no provision for the court to reject the

settlement arrived at. It is true that in an adversarial set-up, if the opposing parties reach a

settlement, then the deciding authority should not be allowed to disturb it. However, in a scenario

where there may be serious inadequacies in the capabilities of the accused, a risk of prosecutorial

coercion and the probability of corruption at various levels, a reasonable level of discretion on the

part of the deciding authority is needed. Relegating the judge to the sidelines will result in a status

quo in the inequality of the bargaining power of the prosecution and the defence, if not an increase.

This imbalance will work in the favour of the accused if he is either well off or well connected, or

both.

c) Possibility of innocent defendants pleading guilty

In a country like India, where there are lengthy pre-trial delays, guilty pleas may be entered upon the

promise that the plea will be accepted swiftly, and the sentence will be for no more than the amount

of time already served. In such cases, the sentence discount is extremely appealing and the pressure

on innocent defendants to plead guilty may be tremendous. At the same time, it is hard to see how

the prosecution can derive more than a purely statistical benefit from the conviction so obtained.

d) Status of the victim

Another problem is that of the status of the victim. The Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice

System, 2003 recommended giving a role to the victim in the negotiation leading to settlement of

criminal cases either through courts, lok adalats or plea-bargaining. Prior to the Act, the law only

envisaged the prosecutor appointed by the State to be the proper authority to plead on behalf of

the victim. However, the Act has provided for some degree of participation by the victim, which

similar to some parts of the United States, effectively provides for consultation with the prosecutor

whose interests in disposing of the case may differ significantly from those of the victim. In fact, the

mutually satisfactory disposition to be worked out by the Public Prosecutor or the complainant and

the accused may include compensating the victim. Furthermore, victim participation in the

negotiation with his lawyer is expressly provided for in cases instituted otherwise than on a police

report while there is no such provision for cases instituted on a police report.

10

Further, because of the limited involvement of the judge, there is no mechanism to verify whether

the wishes of the victim have been satisfactorily fulfilled. Under the new system, prima facie it

seems that the judge has discretion only with respect to sentencing and not with the quantum of

compensation. It follows that the victim’s interest in restitution may not be served even if he is

allowed to consult with the judge.

e) Scope for exploitation

Firstly, it is feared that plea-bargaining may violate principles of criminal jurisprudence and deprive

the accused of assured constitutional safeguards. Another problem is coercion, which is sought to be

eliminated through nomenclature by referring to the arrangement as a mutually satisfactory

disposition. Though there is a procedural safeguard in that the judge is bound to examine the

accused in camera to determine if the plea was voluntary and that the application must include an

affidavit signed by the accused, prosecutorial or other pressure could always exist. The requirement

of the plea being in a written format and accompanied by an affidavit allows scope for coercion by

the police and the prosecution. Moreover, such a system still does not solve the problem of

acquiring adequate legal representation for those who are underprivileged. Thus, for the rich, plea-

bargaining will merely make crime affordable and will be anything but a deterrent. However, one

positive feature of the Act is Section 265.K, which provides the accused with immunity against the

use of the statements or facts stated by him in his application for plea-bargaining for any purpose

other than for the purpose of Chapter XXI-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

f) Transparency of the process and risk of bias

The failure to provide for an independent judicial authority for receiving and evaluating plea

bargaining applications is a glaring error. The court’s examination of the accused in camera, as

opposed to in open court, may lead to public cynicism and distrust for the plea-bargaining system.

The failure to make confidential any order passed by the court rejecting an application could also

create prejudice against the accused.

6) Plea Bargaining and it’s Outcome: Statistics

The system of plea bargaining is new to India; the same has been institutionalized by in other

countries like America and Canada for quite some time. In America according to some

commentators, as many as 95% of all criminal cases are disposed off through guilty pleas and most

of them are a result of plea bargaining between the prosecution and the defence. In India, the state

government in Orissa has stressed plea bargaining scheme as a panacea for huge backlog of court

cases. The Karnataka government after the introduction of “plea bargaining” becomes the first state

in India to initiate a system for speedy disposal of criminal cases. The establishment of such special

courts will act as a deterrent to corruption and bribery in public office. For the first time in the

history, Asia’s largest prison complex Tihar jail saw a reduction of nearly 2,000 inmates in 2007,

thanks to the introduction of plea bargain system. The director general (prison) B.K. Gupta said

reduction from the 2006 figure of 13,500 inmates to 11,500 in 2007 was a milestone in the history of

Tihar jail. He further said that “much of this can be attributed to the plea bargaining system by the

11

Delhi legal service authority which has benefited 664 prisoners through 85 courts held at Tihar

complex where 4,216 cases were disposed off”

7) Advantages and Disadvantages of Plea Bargaining

The principal benefit of plea bargaining is receiving a lighter sentence for a less severe charge than

might result from taking the case to trial and losing. Another fairly obvious benefit that defendants

can reap from plea bargaining is that if they're represented by private counsel, they can save a

bundle on attorney fees. It almost always takes more time and effort to bring a case to trial than to

negotiate and handle a plea bargain. There may be other benefits as well:

Getting Out of Jail: Defendants who are held in custody, who do not qualify for release on their own

recognizance or who either do not have the right to bail or cannot afford bail may get out of jail

immediately following the judge's acceptance of a plea.

Resolving the Matter Quickly: A trial is usually requires a much longer wait and causes much more

stress than taking a plea bargain.

Having Fewer or Less Serious Offences on One’s Record: Pleading guilty or no contest in exchange

for a reduction in the number of charges or the seriousness of the offences looks a lot better on a

defendant's record than the convictions that might result following trial.

Avoiding Hassles: Some people plead guilty especially to routine, minor first offences without hiring

a lawyer. If they waited to go to trial, they would have to find a good lawyer and spend both time

and money preparing for the trial.

Avoiding Publicity: All persons who depend on their reputation in the community to earn a living and

people who don't want to bring further embarrassment to their families may chose to plead guilty or

not contest to keep their names out of the public eye.

There are certain disadvantages or the question by which the validity the concept become duteous

like; the social condition of the country doesn’t justify it because low rate of literacy in India.

Prosecution pressure may result in conviction of the innocents. The poor will be the ultimate victim

of it. It may increase the incidences of crime. Criminals can slip through by the net with impunity.

There is no social benefit in this concept.

8) Cases

Case 1: Operation Leech Trail

The “Operation Leech” trial ended on an unprecedented note since it was one of the rare cases in

which the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) agreed to participate in a plea bargain. The case

relates to the 1998 military intelligence operation in Andaman’s Landfall Islands, where 34

Myanmarese nationals were arrested by the Indian Army. The Myanmarese, as per the plea bargain

agreement, were given a sentence of imprisonment of one year and three months and fine of Rs

6,000 each. However, as they have already been in the prison for over five years and in detention for

12 years, they were to be freed immediately. The order pronounced shows how much flexibility

12

there is while following the plea bargaining procedure. There was no conviction and neither did the

accused plead guilty to any of the charges.

Case 2: Siddartha Optical Disc Vs IMI

A significant case of copyright infringement under the concept of plea bargaining. The Indian Music

Industry (IMI) won a compensation amount of Rs 12 lakhs in a copyright case. During a raid carried

out at the Siddartha Optical Disc (CD plant), 22,000 CDs, 2 CD recording machines, printers,

computers, etc. were seized. Of which mp3 CDs / master stampers belonged to music companies

which were members of IMI. Cases U/Ss 63, 65, 68A CR Act and 292 IPC were registered against

Surendra Wadhwa, owner and MD of the firm as well as against the company. Following which IMI

claimed Rs 100 per CD seized as compensation. But the accused moved another application

admitting his guilt and settling for negotiation.

Other Cases

The Supreme Court of India has examined the concept of plea-bargaining:

Case of Murlidhar Meghraj Loyat v. State of Maharashtra

Case of Kasambhai v. State of Gujarat

Case of Rajinder Kumar Sharma and Anr v. The State and Anr

In all these cases the Supreme Court has resisted the a plea of guilt based on Plea Bargaining, as it

would have been opposed to public policy.

Plea Bargain cases in Delhi Courts

Sl.No.

Name of

Court

Complex

Total referred

cases

Pending for

MSD

Cases not fit

for Plea

Bargaining

Cases not

settled Settled

1 TIS HAZARI 3099 761 60 736 1542

2 PATIALA

HOUSE 280 195 16 29 40

3 KARKARDO

OMA 1295 527 96 225 447

4 ROHINI 283 151 1 34 97

5 DWARKA 762 320 NIL 111 331

TOTAL 5719 1954 173 1135 2457

13

9) Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be said that this new system in Indian criminal jurisprudence to some extend

may help the courts to reduce their burden of over loaded cases. Plea bargaining has been

introduced as a prescription to the problem of overcrowded jails, overburdened courts and

abnormal delays. It cannot be denied that the practice may result in faster disposal of cases; because

delayed trials are problematic in many aspects, the proposal may seem appealing.

But on another hand it cannot be considered as a unique remedy to reduce the backlog of the courts

because by this concept the innocent persons find themselves imprisoned and with criminal records.

We often observe that poor innocent victims are booked for crimes that they never committed, by

the exploitation of anomalies in the policing system, often by the actual perpetrators. In fact, the

majority of under-trial prisoners in India are likely to belong to this category. With the introduction

of plea bargaining, these persons might get pushed from one dark place to the next without the

benefit of ever having a day in court or seeing a judge before whom to plead a case. This so-called

measure to speed up justice may only speed up miscarriages of justice.

10) References

1. Plea Bargaining- New Horizon in Criminal Jurisprudence by K.P. Pradeep, Advocate, High

Court of Keral; http://kja.nic.in/article/PLEA%20BARGAINING.pdf

2. Plea Bargaining, A medicine in Indian Criminal Jurisprudence to reduce a backlog of the

Indian courts: An Overview by Vaibhav Choudhary

3. The Practical Lawyer: http://www.ebc-

india.com/practicallawyer/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=977&Itemid=1

4. Legal service India: http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/plea_bar.htm; and

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l87-Plea-Bargaining.html

5. Expert Law: http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/plea_bargains.html

6. Delhi Courts: http://delhicourts.nic.in/plea/PROCEDURE_1.html

7. Indian Criminal Defense Manual:

http://defensewiki.ibj.org/index.php/India_Criminal_Defense_Manual_-

_Plea_Bargaining/Guilty_Pleas

8. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain