The Legal Analyst

ISSN: 2231-5594
Volume 1, 2011, pp. 27-33

PLEA BARGAINING – A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Dr. Krishan Kumar Kajal*
Abstract: The Concept of plea bargaining was introduced in criminal jurisprudence as an alternative remedy to
the problem o f overcrowded jails, overburdened courts and undue delays. Its practice resulted in quicker disposal
of cri minal matters and appeals and also helped to alleviate the sufferings of under trial prisoners awaiting the
commencement of trials. If a settlement is related, the court can award compensation based on it to the victim. It is
the solemn duty of the state to protect the life, liberty and property of the citizens. 1 Cases like Best Bakery,
Priyadarshini Matto, Jesica Lall and Nitish Katara are reminiscent of the major loopholes in the criminal justice
delivering mechanism which as a direct impact on the levels of lawlessness in our society. Plea Bargaining is an
essential component of the administration of criminal justice. Th i s a rti cle caters th e n eeds o f o nly th e ri ch
o ffen d ers an d i s t hu s u n rea so na bl e. A p oo r o ffen d er i s a ctu al ly deterred fro m pleading guilty because he
knows that even if he does plead guilty he will not get any incentive like his -rich counterpart . However, the Apex
Court in its landmark judgments held that practice of plea bargaining is unconstitutional, illegal and it tends to
encourage corruption, collusion and pollute the pure fount of justice.
Key Words : Crime, Justice, Plea-Bargaining.

Introduction:
The aim of the criminal jurisprudence is to protect, preserve the rights of individual and state against the
international invasion by others, to protect the weak against the strong, the law abiding against lawless
and the peaceful against the violent. It is the solemn duty of the state to protect the life, liberty and
property of the citizens. 1 Cases like Best Bakery, Priyadarshini Matto, Jesica Lall and Nitish Katara are
reminiscent of the major loopholes in the criminal justice delivering mechanism which as a direct impact
on the levels of lawlessness in our society. Plea Bargaining is an essential component of the
administration of criminal justice. It leads to prompt and final disposition of most criminal cases.2
Plea Bargaining: Definition
There is no prefect and simple definition of plea Bargaining. According to Oxford Dictionary, the word
„Plea‟ means appeal, prayer, request or formal statement by or on behalf of defendant and the word
„Bargain‟ Means negotiation, settlement, deal, covenant, barter or pact.3 Hence the word meaning of plea
bargaining may be an appeal or formal statement by the defendant for negotiated settlement with the
prosecution for the offence charged against him. 4
According to Black‟s Law Dictionary, it is defined as follow: “The process whereby the accused and the
prosecutor in a criminal case work out a mutual satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court
approval. It usually involves the defendant‟s pleading guilty to a leaser offence or to only one or some of
the courts of a multi-count indication in return for a higher sentence than that possible for the graver
charge.”
Plea Bargaining may be defined as an agreement in a criminal case between the prosecution and the
defence by which the accused changes his plea from not guilty to guilty in return for any offer by the
prosecution or when the Judge has informally let it be known that he will minimize the sentence if the
accused pleads guilty. 5
Concept of Plea Bargaining: The concept of plea bargaining is not totally alien to the Indian criminal
jurisprudence, but it is definitely a distinct shift in the criminal jurisprudence of this nation as evident

* Assistant Professor-in-Law, C. R. Law College, Hisar, Haryana, INDIA.

1
P.P. Naolekar, “Plea- Bargaining & witness protection: Recommendation, Reforms and Reflections”, Vol. 5 No. 1, 2007
Scholasticus at 1
2
Avimanyu Behera, “Plea Bargaining in India”, Vol. LVI, No. 2, 2009 The Indian Police Journal at 72
3
M artin Elizabeth A., Oxford Dictionary of Law. 5th Edn. Oxford University Press
4
B.P. Singh, “Plea Bargaining under Indian Criminal Law”, Vol. XIII, Part -II, 2008 M.D. Uni. Law Journal at164
5
Indlawnews.com accessed on 27 April, 2011
28 THE LEGAL ANALYST [Vol. I
______________________________________________________________________________

from a number of decisions of the Supreme Court of India where it was observed that plea-
barga ining is not recognised in Indian cr imina l jurisprudence. Madan Lal Ram Chandra Daga
v. State of Maharashtra6 is one of the earliest Supreme Court cases, where Hiddavatullah J.
opined:
If the court thinks that leniency can be shown on the facts of the case it may impose a
lighter sentence. But the court should never he a party to a bargain by which money is
recovered for the complainant t hrough their agenc y.
It is very interesting to note that the observations of Krishna Iyer J. in M urlidhar M eghraj
Loya etc. v. State of M aharashtra etc. 7 a case involving offences of food adulteration under
P revention of Food A dulterat ion Act , 1954 not only ref lects t he pos it ion of Indian law
contradistinguished from American law in 1976 but also stands true for the current
amendments as socio-economic offences are not covered under the present provisions dealing
with the plea -bargaining. The relevant observations of the Court were as follows:
“...Many economic offenders resort to practices the Americans call „plea bargaining‟. „plea negotiation‟.,
„trading out‟ and „compromise in crimina l cases‟ and the tria l magistrate drowned by a docket
burden nods assent to the sub rosa ante -room settlement. The businessman culprit,
confronted by a sure prospect of the agony and ignominy of tenancy of a prison cell, „trades
out‟ of the situation, the bargain being a plea of guilt, coupled with a promise of „no jail.‟
These advance arrangements please everyone except the distant victim, t he silent society.
The prosecutor is relieved of the long process of proof, legal technicalit ies and long
arguments, punctuated by revisional excursions to higher courts, the court sighs relief that
its ordeal, surrounded by a crowd of papers and persons, is avoided by one case less and
the accused is happy that even if legalist ic batt les might have held out some astrological
hope of abstract acquittal in the expensive hierarchy of the justice-system he is free early in
the day to pursue his old pr ofession. It is idle to speculate on the virtue of negotiated
settlements of criminal cases, as obtains in the United States but in our jurisdiction, especially in the
area of dangerous economic crimes and f ood offences, this pract ice intr udes on society‟s
interest by opposing society's decision expressed through predetermined legislative fixation of
minimum sentences and by subtly subverting the mandate of the law.”
The 154th report of the Law Commission recommended that plea bargaining should be included as a
separate chapter in the Indian criminal jurisprudence. 8 In the 142th Law Commission Report 9 the
conception of idea behind incorporating the idea of plea bargaining was mentioned wherein it was stated
that there needs to be some remedial legislative measures to reduce the delays in the disposal of criminal
trials and appeals and also to alleviate the sufferings of under trial prisoners awaiting the commencement
of trials. The 177th Report 10 of the Law Commission, 2001 also sought to be incorporate of plea
bargaining. The report of the Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice system, 2003 stated that the
experience of the United State was an evidence of plea bargaining being a means for the disposal of
accumulated cases and expediting the delivery of criminal justice.
The NDA government formed a committee, headed by the former Chief Justice of the Karnataka and
Kerala High Courts, where Justice V.S. Malimath came up with some suggestions to tackle the ever-
growing number of criminal cases. In its report, the Malimath Committee recommended that a system of
plea bargaining be introduced in the Indian Criminal administration of Judicial System to facilitate the
earlier disposal of criminal cases and to reduce the burden of the courts. Accordingly, the draft Criminal
Law (Amendment) Bill, 2003 was introduced in the parliament. The statement of objects and reasons,
inter alia, mentions that, the disposal of criminal trials in the courts takes considerable time and that in

6
(1968) 3 SCR 34
7
(1976) 3 SCC 684
8
154th Law Commission Report, 1996 on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Vol. 1
9
142th Law Commission Report of India, 1991
10
177th Report of the Law Commission, 2001
2011] PLEA BARGAINING 29
______________________________________________________________________________
many cases trial do not commence for as long as 3 to 5 years after the accused was remitted to judicial
custody. Though it could not be recognized by the criminal jurisprudence, it is seen as an alternative
method to deal with the huge arrears of criminal cases. The bill attracted enormous public debate. Critics
say that it should not be recognized as it would go against the public policy under our criminal justice
system. The Supreme Court has also time and again reiterated the concept of plea bargaining saying that
negotiation in criminal cases is not permissible. 11
Plea Bargaining was introduced in India by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005 by the Parliament
in the winter session of 2005, which amended the Code of Criminal P rocedure and introduced a new
chapter XXI (A) in the code containing sections 265A to 265L which came into effect from July 5, 2006.
It was due to the inspiration that has been gained from America which made Indian to experiment the
concept of plea bargaining in the country.
Delay in providing law to the citizens has become a hindrance in crime prevention. What is seen today is
that the crime rate increases at a greater rate than the punishment of those offenders. So the requirement
of today is that there needs to be some mechanism which can bring equilibrium between the commitment
of crime as well as punishment of those offenders. Plea Bargaining is one of the process which can be
used to reduce the burden of the courts.
Karnataka was the first state to introduce the concept of plea bargaining in India. According to
Karnatakas Law Minister HK Patil the concept of plea bargaining will help in clearing the backlog from
the courts. Even Arvind Narain, a lawyer with the Alternative Law Forum opined that, this is one of the
ways of clearing the backlog.
The criminal justice delivery system of this nation has been mired by the perennial problem of delays.
Given the kind of delays, which afflict the system, the pursuit of justice is often a painful tedious
process that results in the unfortunate feeling that it is a sheer waste of time. Several Judges,
Scholars and Media personalities have expressed serious concerns about the slothful, s luggish
and s lumber ing s tate of t he just ice delivery system. Justice Krishna lyer while dealing with a
bail petition in Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh12 remarked:
“Our justice system even in grave cases, suffers from slow motion syndrome which is lethal to fair
trial whatever the ultimate decision. Speedy j ustice is a component of social justice since
the community, as a whole, is concerned in the criminal being condignly and finally punished
within a reasonable time and the innocent being absolved f rom the inordinate ordeal of
criminal proceedings.”
In Hussainara Khatoon & Other s (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar13 with reference to
the under-trial persons, it was observed:
“...No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as
„reasonable, fair or just‟ and it would f all foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no
doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trail, is an
integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article
21."
Conceptually, the plea bargaining mechanism reduces the administration of criminal justice to a barter
system, where the haggling is between legal punishment and gains to the wrongdoer. Secondly, even
the innocent accused would capitulate to wrong compromises and wrong convictions in order to escape
from the ordeal of a prolonged and expensive trial. Thirdly, cases in which the accused might finally
secure acquittal would be converted into cases of unmerited conviction. Such accused can develop a
scornful attitude to the justice dispensing system. Finally, plea bargaining can be construed as violating
the principles enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution that no person shall be deprived of his liberty
except according to the procedure established by law.14

11
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/Art/plea_bar.htm Last assessed on April 25, 2011
12
(1978) 1 SCC 579
13
(1980) 1 SCC 81
14
www.mgsipap.org./computer_centre/publication.htm Last Assessed on April 25, 2011
30 THE LEGAL ANALYST [Vol. I
______________________________________________________________________________

Plea-B argaining: Is violative of Constitution?

Article 14: The plea-bargaining has in fact created an arbitrary and unreasonable classification
between two similarly situated individuals. And the sole criterion for such distinction seems to be
nothing but the ability of a person to compensate the victim (necessarily by paying money) and t he
disability of another person to do the same. This is not allowed by virtue of Article 14 of
the Constitut ion as it is arbitrary and unreasonable. 15
This article caters the needs of only the rich offenders and is thus unreasonable. A poor
offender is actually deterred from pleading guilty because he knows that even if he does plead guilty
he will not get any incentive like his -rich counterpart. This distinction being created by the concept
of plea-bargaining is violative of Article 14. This distinction will also tend to increase rather than
decrease the litigation as the poor offender will opt for a trial rather than pleading guilty owing to the
lack of incentive which is available only to rich offenders having the capability to meet the
demands of victim. 16
Article 20: The concept of “plea-bargaining” is also violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Article 20(3) protects an accused from self-incrimination and provides that: “No person accused of
any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." The compulsion referred to under
Article 20(3) means duress and includes not merely physical threats or violence, but also psychic
torture, atmospheric pressure, environmental coercion, tiring interrogative proximity, overbearing
and intimidating methods and the like. 17 Under the concept of “plea -bargaining” though it
appears that the accused acts voluntarily w hile making an application under Section 265-B, but
in fact he is “compelled” to make the application and plead guilty and there is no mechanism to
ensure voluntariness. Hence the concept of plea-bargaining not only violates Article 20(3) and causes
injustice but is also a move towards legalising extortion.
At this juncture it must also be pointed out that the scheme of “plea-bargaining” has been
profoundly criticised by the Supreme Court, even before it was introduced to the Criminal
Procedure Code. The Supreme Court went to the extent of holding the concept to be violative of
Article 21 of the Constitution 18 which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
Objectives of Plea Bargaining
(i) To reduce the arrears of criminal cases pending in the criminal courts in India for a long time
which could not be decided by the courts due to technicalities involved and the cumbersome
process of trial of the offence being non-compoundable.
(ii) To decrease the number of under-trial prisoners languishing in jail even for longer terms than
punishment prescribed in law for the offences and overcrowding the jails there-by reducing
burden on the state exchequer.
(iii) To make provision of compensation to the victims of crime by the accused, who has suffered loss
due to the offence committed against his person or property by the accused.
(iv) To cut delays in the disposal of criminal cases.
Applicability: Plea Bargaining may be applied to only in the cases of offences other than the offence for
which the punishment for death or imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years are prescribed.
Requests for plea bargaining can be initated only at the stage of cognizance of the offence by the
court.19 In the positive sense all offences for which punishment up to seven years has been provided
under the law in force are covered under the law of plea bargaining.20
15
Jayant Sangwan and Bhavya Nain, “Plea Bargaining in India: A Concept misplaced”, Vol. (2) , Supreme Court Cases (cri)
Journal Section , (2008) , p 1.
16
Ibid.
17
Nandini Satpathy v. PL. Dani (1978) 2 SCC 424: 1978 SCC (Cri) 236: AIR 1978 SC 1025
18
After M aneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 AIR 1978 SC 597 it is not sufficient that a procedure established by
law exists, the procedure so established must also be just, fair and reasonable. In the opinion of the court if the procedure is not
just, fair, and reasonable it can be struck down as being violative of the Constitution.
19
R.V. Kelkar‟s Criminal Procedure Code. 5th Edn. (Lucknow: Eastern Book Company 2008), at 563
20
Sec. 265(A) of the Cr.P.C., 1973.
2011] PLEA BARGAINING 31
______________________________________________________________________________
Exceptions
1.
Where the offence has been committed against a woman of a child below the age of fourteen
years.21
2.
Where the accused has previously been convicted by a court in a case charged with the same
offence.22
3.
It does not apply where such offence affects the socio-economic conditions of the country (which
offences under the in force shall be notified by the Central Govt. through notification). 23
4.
Where the accused is a “juvenile” as defined in clause (K) of section 2 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (56 of 2000) 24
When Plea Bargains are Made?
i) On Police Report: When after the investigation of the case police report under section 173 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the officer in charge of the police station in the court Judicial
Magistrate relating to an offence (other than an offence for which a punishment of death or of
imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years has been provided) and after
applying its discretionary powers, the Judicial Magistrate proceeds to take cognizance of the offence and
frames a charge against the accused is the stage where the application for plea bargaining can be
entertained by the trial court. 25
ii) On Private Complaint: In case of private complaint the application for plea bargaining can be
filed by the accused at the stage when a Judicial Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence (other than an
offence for which the punishment of death or of imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term
exceeding seven years has been provided), after examination of complainant and the witnesses and
decides to issue process against the accused under sections 200 and 204 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.26
The Procedure for Plea Bargaining: The procedure of plea-bargaining is very simple. The criminal
jurisprudence enables the accused to file an application for plea bargaining in the court where the trial is
pending. 27 The court, on receiving the application accompanied with affidavit, must examine the accused
in camera 28 where the other parties in the case shall not be present, to ascertain whether the application
has been filed voluntarily and without fear or favour. 29 The court then issues notice to the public
prosecutor 30 or the complainant to work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case. 31 The
negotiation of such a mutually acceptable settlement is left to the free will of the prosecution, the victim
and the accused. If a settlement is reached, the court can award compensation based on it to the victim
and then hear the parties on the issue of punishment. If a minimum sentence is provided for the offence,

21
Ibid.
22
Ibid Sec. 265(B) 4(b)
23
The Central Government by S.O. 1042 (E) dated 11th July, 2006 has notified following laws affecting socio-economic
condition of the country, i) Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, ii) The Commission of Sati Prevention Act, 1987, iii) The Indecent
representation of Woman (Prohibition) Act, 1986, iv) The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, v) Protection of women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, vi) The Infant M ilk Substitutes.......... Act, 1992. vii) Provisions of Fruits Products Order, 1955 &
viii) Provisions of M eat Food Products Orders, 1973 issued under Essential Commodities, Act 1955, ix) Offences with respect to
animals and related to alteration of boundaries of protected areas under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. x) S.C. & S.T.
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. xi) Offences under Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. xii) Offences under section 23 to
28 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000. xiii) The Army Act, 1950. xiv) The Air Force Act, 1950. xv)
The Navy Act, 1957. xvi) Offences under sections 59 to 81 & 83 of the Delhi M etro Railway (Operation & maintenance) Act,
2002. xvii) The Explosives Act, 1884. xviii) Offences under sections 11 to 18 of the Cable & Television Networks (Regulation)
Act, 1995. xix) The Cinomatograph Act, 1952.
24
Sec. 265 L of Cr.P.C., 1973. Juvenile M eans – A person who has not completed eighteenth year of age.
25
Ibid Sec. 265 A(a)
26
Ibid. Sec. 265 A(b)
27
Ibid. Sec. 265 B(1)
28
Ibid. Sec. 265 (1)B (4)
29
Ibid. Sec. 265 (B) 4
30
Ibid. Sec. 265 B (1) 3
31
Ibid. Sec. 265 (c)
32 THE LEGAL ANALYST [Vol. I
______________________________________________________________________________

the court may sentence the accused to half of such minimum punishment; 32 or it may release the accused
on probation if the law allows it; or if the offence committed does not fall within the scope of the
aforementioned conditions, then the accused may be sentenced to one fourth of the punishment provided
for such offence.33 The accused may also avail of the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 which allows for the setting off of the period of detention undergone by the accused
against the sentence of imprisonment. 34 In so far as appeals are concerned, it must be noted that this
judgment is final and no appeal lies apart from a writ petition to the State High Court under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution or a special leave petition to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. 35
Some Landmark Judicial Pronouncements on Plea Bargaining: In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh
v. Chandrika36 , the court held that the practice of plea bargaining is unconstitutional, illegal and would
tend to encourage corruption, collusion and pollute the pure fount of justice because it might induce an
innocent accused to plead guilty to suffer a light and inconsequential punishment rather than go through a
long and arduous criminal trial which, having regard to our cumbrous and unsatisfactory system of
administration of justice, is not only long drawn out and ruinous in terms of time and money, but also
uncertain and unpredictable in its result and the judge also might be likely to be deflected from the path of
duty to do justice and he might either convict an innocent accused by accepting the plea of guilty or let of
a guilty accused with a light sentence, thus, subverting the process of law and frustrating the social
objective and purpose of the anti-adulteration statute. This practice would also tend to encourage
corruption and collusion and as a direct consequence, contribute to the lowering of the standard of justice.
Further, in the case of Kachhia Patel Shantilal Koderlal v. State of Gujarat37 where the accused was
convicted for the crime of adulteration, the court held that plea bargaining is unconstitutional and illegal
and would subvert the process of law and frustrate social objective and purpose of anti-adulteration
statute.
Enhancement of sentence by Appellate or Revisional court on the basis of Plea bargaining
unconstitutional under Art. 21 of the Constitution: The Supreme court in case Ganeshmal Jasraj v.
Govt. of Gujarat38 and Thippeswamy v. State of Karnataka39 set aside the order passed by the High Courts
enhancing the sentence in a food adulteration case and remanded the matter to the trial court for trial in
accordance with law, as the conviction and sentence were based on admission of guilt as a consequence of
plea bargaining. The Apex Court observed that it would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution to
induce an accused to plead guilty under an assurance that he would be treated lightly and than in appeal or
revision the sentence is enhanced. Such a procedure would be clearly unfair, unjust and unreasonable in
view of the dimensions unfolded in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.40
In Kachhia Patel Shantilal Koderlal v. State of Gujarat41 the Supreme court ruled that the practice of plea
bargaining is unconstitutional, illegal and would tend to encourage corruption, collusion and pollute the
justice system because it might induce an innocent accused to plead guilty and to suffer a lighter and
inconsequential punishment instead of going through a long and arduous criminal trial which is not only
expensive and time consuming but also uncertain and unpredictable in its result. The judge may also be
deflected from the path of justice and may convict the innocent by accepting the plea of guilty or let off a
guilty accused with a lighter sentence.

32
Ibid. Sec. 265 E(c)
33
Ibid. Sec. 265 E(d)
34
Ibid. Sec. 265 (i)
35
Ibid. Sec. 265 G
36
AIR 1999 SC 164 : 2000 SCC (cri) 16
37
(1980) 3 SCC 120
38
AIR 1980 SC 264
39
AIR 1983 SC 747
40
AIR 1978 SC 597
41
AIR (1980) 3 SCC 120
2011] PLEA BARGAINING 33
______________________________________________________________________________
In this case Kasambhai Abdulrehmanbhai Sheikh v. State of Gujarat 42 which pertained to food
adulteration there was a plea bargaining between the prosecution, the accused and the learned magistrate
and on the basis of an understanding between the three parties the accused now appellant pleaded guilty
and the learned magistrate accepting this plea of guilty convicted and sentenced the accused with a
nominal sentence of imprisonment till rising to the court and a small amount of Rs.125 as a fine. The
learned magistrate filled up a cyclostyled form of judgment in which merely blanks were filled, it goes to
show that he was in the habit of encouraging plea bargaining and letting of the accused lightly. It was held
to be a very reprehensible practice adopted by the magistrate. The High court initiated suo motto
proceedings of revision when the case came to the notice of the high court by issuing show cause notice
to the accused, convict or appellant as to why the sentence imposed upon him be not enhanced. The High
court enhanced the sentence for a minimum term of three month‟s simple imprisonment and fine to Rs.
500 on the basis of plea of guilty entered on by the accused in the trial court as a result of plea bargaining.
The Supreme Court on appeal by special leave set aside the conviction and sentence of enhancement
passed by the High court and held it contrary to public policy to allow a conviction to be recorded against
an accused by inducing him to confess on an allurement being held that he will be let off very lightly in
case he pleads guilty to the offence charged against him. Such a procedure shall be unfair, unreasonable
and unjust being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The High court should have set aside the
conviction and sentence passed by the learned magistrate on the plea of guilty as a result of plea
bargaining and sent the case back for trial from the stage the accused confessed the guilt, in accordance
with law ignoring the plea of guilty entered by the appellant.
In Kirpal Singh v. State of Haryana43 in a case involving sections 392 and 397 I.P.C. where minimum
punishment of seven years of rigorous imprisonment by the law has been provided. It was held by the
apex court that concept of plea bargaining can‟t be adopted to circumvent the minimum punishment
prescribed by law. Neither the High court nor the trial court has the jurisdiction to by-pass the minimum
limit of sentence prescribed by law on the pretext that a pre-bargain was clinched by the accused on the
assumption that court would award him punishment even less than minimum prescribed by law and let
him off lightly. This procedure was held to be unfair, unjust and unreasonable and hence violative of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Similar observations were made by the Apex Court in State of
U.P. v. Nasruddin44 in a case section 304 I.P.C. where plea bargaining on the question of sentence was
held to be not permissible under the law.
Concluding Observation: The Concept of plea bargaining was introduced as alternative remedy to the
problem of overcrowded jails, overburdened courts and undue delays. Its practice resulted in quicker
disposal of criminal matters and appeals and also helped to alleviate the sufferings of under trial
prisoners awaiting the commencement of trials. If a settlement is related, the court can award
compensation based on it to the victim. However, the Apex Court in its landmark judgments held that
practice of plea bargaining is unconstitutional, illegal and it tends to encourage corruption, collusion and
pollute the pure fount of justice. It further observed that no Court has the Jurisdiction to by-pass the
minimum limit of sentence prescribed by law. The plea bargaining may be effective method mechanism
for removing the backlog in courts. The success depends upon the willingness of the offender to confess
and the agreement of the victim for a reduction in punishment. Indeed compensation has been
imaginatively woven into the texture of plea bargaining. We would also like to mention that mere
reforms, recommendations and change in the procedural and substantive laws are not the essential for
achieving the noble goal of fair trial for all. It is a noble idea which must be protected and preserved in the
minds of the people who are responsible for delivering justice to the citizens.
†††

42
AIR 1980 SC 854
43
(1999) Cri.L.J. 5031
44
(2000) Cri.L.J. 4996(1)