COMPARATIVE PUBLIC LAW

PLEA BARGAINING
A COMPARATIVE LAW ANALYSIS OF INDIA, USA, AND ITALY

SUBMITTED TO:
Dr. Shruti Bedi

SUBMITTED BY:
Aachman Shekhar
LL.M. (One Year) 22/11

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

Country Based Analysis ............................................................................................................. 2

India ....................................................................................................................................... 2

History: .............................................................................................................................. 2

Current Form and Purpose ................................................................................................. 3

Judicial Opinion ................................................................................................................. 4

USA........................................................................................................................................ 5

History................................................................................................................................ 5

Current Form and Purpose ................................................................................................. 6

Judicial Opinion ................................................................................................................. 7

Italy ........................................................................................................................................ 7

History................................................................................................................................ 7

Current Form and Purpose ................................................................................................. 8

Judicial Opinion ................................................................................................................. 8

Comparative Analysis ................................................................................................................ 9

Substantive Differences ......................................................................................................... 9

Advantages ........................................................................................................................... 10

Disadvantages ...................................................................................................................... 11

Suggestions and Reforms ......................................................................................................... 12

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 13
 INTRODUCTION

Criminal law the world over possesses certain special procedures, each created to
satisfy a specific purpose. These range from specific mechanisms to aid police in carrying out
arrests to the very procedure that courts take up when deciding convictions and trials. These
mechanisms evolve over the course of time, with new procedures coming into existence on an
almost regular basis. One such procedure is that of plea bargaining, a relatively modern method
of court conviction.

Plea bargaining involves reaching an agreement made before the case reaches the court
between the prosecutor and defendant through the defence attorney, where the defendant pleads
guilty in return for concessions to his sentence. As defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, a plea
bargain is an agreement set up between the plaintiff and the defendant to come to a resolution
about a case, without ever taking it to trial. 1 Plea bargaining possesses wide differences in
different countries, however the general practice of plea bargaining is one of three forms: (i)
the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for waiving off a greater charge; (ii)
the defendant pleads guilty to only one of several charges in exchange for waiving off the other
charges; (iii) the defendant pleads guilty to original charge for a more lenient judgement. This
allows for much speedier trials and allows the convicts to escape much stricter sentences.

Plea bargaining greatly differs from country to country in terms of its applicability,
procedure, extent and usage. This paper however will restrict itself to three countries in
particular – India, USA and Italy – analysing the history, current form and purposes and the
judicial stances in each of the three. Following this, the paper will delve into a comparative
analysis on the law that exists in these three countries, and then examine the advantages and
disadvantages of the system as a whole while grounding the analysis in the framework of these
three countries. Finally, the paper will conclude with suggestions and reforms that the Indian
law on plea bargaining should take into account to reach a more optimal level.

1
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 2nd EDITION

Page |1
 COUNTRY BASED ANALYSIS

INDIA

History:
Plea bargaining is a relatively modern mechanism introduced to the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973,2 only coming into force in 2006 after the passing of the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 2005.3 This amendment established Chapter XXIA into the Cr.P.C. which
instituted the concept of plea bargaining. 4

The concept has a deeper history however, first discussed in the 142nd Report of the
Law Commission of India5 chaired by Justice MP Thakkar. This Report recognised the growing
problem that India was facing in terms of disposal of trials and appeals, often culminating in
the accused, under-trial prisoners languishing in jails for an abnormal period of time. The
solution proposed was allowing for pleas without bargaining to give a concession to the
accused, allowing an alleviation of their sentences, in a model which took guidance from the
already prevalent American system. The Report also brought in the issue of the costs it took to
keep such ‘criminals’ in jail for that many extra years. Two categories were discussed –
sentence bargaining and charge bargaining. Sentence bargaining involves the prosecution
recommending a specific sentence in exchange for a guilty plea by the defendant while charge
bargaining involves the defendant pleading guilty to some charges in exchange for waiving off
others.

The 154th Report6 chaired by K Jayachandra Reddy expanded this discussion, clarifying
how exactly the mechanism would work in the Indian context. The Report reiterated the
reasoning given in the 142nd Report for the mechanism, laying down that it should only apply
to crimes of a punishment of seven years’ imprisonment or less, a model followed today.
Furthermore, it laid the conditions that this will not be available to habitual offenders, those

2
Hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.
3
Chapter III, CRIMINAL LAW (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005
4
As contained in S.265A-L of the Cr.P.C.
5
LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, 142ND REPORT ON CONCESSIONAL TREATMENT FOR OFFENDERS WHO ON THEIR OWN
INITIATIVE CHOOSE TO PLEAD GUILTY WITHOUT BARGAINING (1991)
6
LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, 154TH REPORT ON THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (1996)

Page |2
who committed socio-economic offences or those who committed offences against women or
children.

The final discussion before the 2005 Amendment was that of the Malimath Committee
Report in 2003,7 again mentioning that when an accused feels contrite and wants to make
amends or is honestly a candid and genuine person, he should be treated differently with certain
concessions. This Report strongly recommended establishing the procedures advised in the
142nd and 154th Law Commission Reports to quickly and easily resolve a large number of cases.
This solidified the impression that plea bargaining was essential, leading up to the 2005
Amendment Act and the current form of the law.

Current Form and Purpose

Plea bargaining in its current form is contained in Sections 265A-L of the Cr.P.C. It
applies only to offences for which the punishment is imprisonment for seven years or less and
which do not affect the socio-economic conditions of the country or are offences against a
woman or child under the age of fourteen. 8 Furthermore in the event the application was
involuntarily filed or the accused had previously been convicted by a Court for the same
offence, the mechanism of plea bargaining will not be available to him.9 An application would
contain a brief description of the case accompanied by an affidavit by the accused stating that
he has voluntarily preferred a plea bargain settlement. The Court will take cognizance of the
same, examine the accused in camera without the presence of the other party and then decide
a judgement more lenient than the original charges laid down. 10 The victim will receive
compensation and judge the sentence, with the ability to sentence the accused for half the
minimum punishment.11

Thus plea bargaining offers a quick legal remedy where no arguments are presented to
the Court, only the facts and the sentence recommended by the Prosecutor. The victim need
not even appear for the trial, receiving compensation after the trial. The accused must
necessarily go to court and receive his sentencing, however this too is greatly quickened. As

7
UNION MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON REFORMS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
(2003), p.178
8
Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter XXIA, Sections 265A
9
Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter XXIA, Sections 265B
10
Id
11
Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter XXIA, Sections 265E

Page |3
specified in the 142nd Report and later 154th, the primary purpose is in fact speeding up trials
and the court system, thus allowing the prisons to be freed up. Those who voluntarily wish to
repent will be given concessions they deserve for their well-spirited intentions. While the
Commissions envisaged that this mechanism would be applicable to all crimes in the future,
there is currently no intention to extend the ambit of plea bargaining. The true motivations
behind the Legislature enacting the 2005 Amendment Act is not entirely clear however the
reasons cited have been overcrowding of jails, high rates of acquittal and torture of the
accused.12

Judicial Opinion

Indian judicial opinion, particularly the Apex Court itself, was initially strongly against
plea bargaining and any associated mechanisms, particularly on the basis of the morality behind
such agreements and the consequences that it would create to the very principle of justice. 13
The landmark case on the topic of plea bargaining before its induction into the Cr.P.C. is
Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v State of Maharashtra14. In this case the accused was caught selling
adulterated food and in an attempt to get a lighter conviction informally approached the trial
magistrate, pleading guilty in a manner very similar to the system of plea bargaining. Justice
Krishna Iyer in this case stated that the system allowed the ‘businessman culprit’ an easy pass
out by trading in his desolation at prison for an act of repentance, satisfying all except the
victim himself and society through the destruction of justice. This disapproval was again
upheld in State of Uttar Pradesh v Chandrika 15 where the Supreme Court set aside an order of
the High Court which allowed for plea bargaining as it was not recognised in the law at the
time. The disapproval even extended to the argument that plea bargaining was against Article
2116 as it was not procedure established by law.17 The disapproval was not universal; the

12
T. Aggarwal and S. Rewari, Wanna Make a Deal? The Introduction of Plea Bargaining in India, (2006) 2
S.C.C. (Cri) (J)
13
Madan Lal Ramchandra Daga v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC1267; State of Uttar Pradesh v Chandrika,
AIR 2000 SC 164
14
Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 1929
15
State of Uttar Pradesh v Chandrika, AIR 2000 SC 164
16
INDIA CONST. art. 21
17
Thippaswamy v State of Karnataka, AIR 1983 SC 747

Page |4
Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat v Natwar Harchandji Thakor 18 believing it to be a fast
and cheap manner of disposing these cases.

However, it must be recognised that these cases were all previous to the induction of
plea bargaining into the law. After the case of Vijay Moses Das v CBI 19 which was the first
case to accept plea bargaining, plea bargaining has begun to be widely accepted among the
Indian judiciary.20

USA
History

While many Americans and their courts believe that plea bargaining has always been a
part and parcel of their criminal justice system, to the degree where Justice Charles Clark even
stated “Plea bargains have accompanied the whole history of this nation’s criminal justice
system”21, this belief is not entirely grounded in fact. In reality for many centuries American
judiciaries actively discouraged the system and only in the late 19th century did they begin to
accept the procedure. By the 20th century the power of the politicians and reporters increased
as well as the population, creating a need for a faster justice system and thus causing the rise
of plea bargaining in courts. Substantive expansions in criminal law and in particular liquor-
prohibitions also led to this increase. 22

Following the 1920s plea bargaining gained immense support and good word, to the
degree where it came to the forefront in processing criminal cases. While the Sixth Amendment
itself makes no mention of plea bargaining, the judiciary have upheld its validity. It thus
extended in its ambit, resulting in the current system of plea bargaining in the United States
where any and all crimes can be plea bargained for large concessions in the conviction. Only
recently has there been some degree of disapproval towards the system, particularly due to the
ease with which one can find out about any conviction and subsequently refuse a multitude of

18
State of Gujarat v Natwar Harchandji Thakor, (2005) Cr.L.J. 2957
19
Vijay Moses Das v CBI, Crim.Misc. Appln 1037/2006
20
Ranbir Singh v State, 2012 (1) RCR(Criminal) 928; State of Delhi v Amar Singh, 2016 Cr.L.J. 583
21
Bryan v United States, 492 F.2d 775, 780 (5th Cir. 1974)
22
Albert Alschuler, Plea Bargaining and its History, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL, 79 COLOMBIA LAW
REVIEW 1, 1979

Page |5
services. However, America remains the reason for the popularity and proliferation of plea
bargaining as a mechanism in criminal law.

Current Form and Purpose

In the United States when a defendant is first arrested he is made to appear before the
court where he is informed of the crimes he allegedly committed and the rights he possesses.
The prosecutor then files the charges against the accused and he again appears before the court
where he is allowed to make a plea. If he pleads nolo contendere, implying that he does not
want to contend – plea bargaining. The accused can reach a plea agreement on any crime,
regardless of its severity, and can even reach it at a later point of time of the case, however it
generally occurs before the case reaches trial. He may even withdraw his appeal for a bona fide
reason.23 The accused however has no constitutional right to receive a plea offer and the
prosecution can reject any offers if he so desires.24 The judge can decide whether or not to
accept the plea bargain, being under no compulsion to accept even if the parties are in
concurrence.25 Primarily the judge determines whether the accused entered into the plea
voluntarily, knowing the full consequences of the same. Furthermore, as per the Federal
Procedure Code, the judge must ask a series of questions to ensure fairness and justice.26
Procedurally however it is fairly uncomplicated, with a simple statement of the agreement
desired to be stated on record to the Court for a satisfactory application of plea bargaining.

Plea bargaining in the United States has a much wider ambit than most other countries,
and is significantly more popular. 97% of federal cases and 94% of state cases end in plea
bargains.27 It has even reached pop culture, with movies like A Few Good Men discussing it at
length. While plea bargains are primarily used to get lenient sentences, sometimes it is used to
convince a defendant to give information on related cases or to testify against others.28 Plea
bargains have reached an inextricable status in the current legal system of America.

23
CRIM. PROC. S.21.3(f) (3d ed. 2007)
24
Weatherford v Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (1977)
25
CRIM. PROC. S.21.3(e) (3d ed. 2007)
26
FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)
27
Erica Goode, Stronger Hand for Judges in the ‘Bazaar’ of Plea Deals, NY TIMES, 22-03-12, last accessed at
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/stronger-hand-for-judges-after-rulings-on-plea-deals.html on 04-08-12
28
Often used in crime and mob related trials

Page |6
Judicial Opinion

The majority of cases in the United States on plea bargaining considering that over 90%
of the cases are plea bargaining cases. A landmark case on the issue of plea bargaining and its
constitutionality was the case of Brady v United States29 where plea bargains were held as
constitutional and legitimate, however the Court raised concerns over the potential misuse of
plea bargaining leading to a scenario where defendants even if innocent plead guilty in order
to receive concessions in the form of plea bargains. Furthermore, Santobello v New York30 held
that when plea bargains are broken there are still other legal remedies available to the people.

In essence, going over the judicial precedence when relating to plea bargaining extends
to virtually every case the United States criminal law system is associated with. It is accepted
that plea bargaining is an essential part of the criminal system in the United States.

ITALY
History

The Italian criminal law system varies strongly from that of India and the United States
as it follows the civil law system. It thus has the majority of its laws codified into easily
referable codes with a far lower importance on precedence. Originally Italy followed an
inquisitorial system where the prerogative of the court and its agents was the extraction of
information form the accused and thus allow the judge to arrive at the conclusion himself. This
system did not allow for the various options that the adversarial system allows for, including
plea bargaining.31

Post 1988, Italy revised its Code of Criminal Procedure and now follows an adversarial
system of criminal procedure, with two sides presenting arguments and rebutting each other,
taking with it plea bargaining and abbreviated trials. The Italian legislature further legitimised
consensual justice, that which plea bargaining is built upon.32

29
Brady v United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970)
30
Santobello v New York, 404 U.S. 257
31
Federica Iovene, Plea Bargaining and Abbreviated Trial in Italy, WARWICK SCHOOL OF LAW RESEARCH PAPER
NO. 2013/11, 28-05-2013
32
Id

Page |7
Current Form and Purpose

Plea bargaining, or patteggiamento, in Italy is markedly different from plea bargaining

in other countries. The accused pleads not on the charges but on the sentence, which if
successful reduces his sentence by one third and waives off all legal fees. The accused thus
accepts and concedes to all charges against him, however plea bargaining itself is only available
for punishments of imprisonment from five years or less or a fine, and thus the defendant cannot
accede to extraneous charges. Appeals are further allowed only on the basis of a fault in
procedure and not on the merits of the case itself. These appeals are taken to the highest court
of Italy.

The defendant and the prosecutor agree upon a specific proposal, which is then
presented to the judge. The judge then, on the basis of the evidence at hand, determines whether
the defendant is in actuality innocent, guilty and deserves the harsher sentence or is guilty yet
deserves a lenient sentence. This is primarily to speed up trials as the sentence is already
presented to the judge.

Judicial Opinion

Precedence in Italy is of far less importance as Italy follows civil law and not common
law, however it still holds some degree of persuasive value to the judges and thus must be
looked into briefly.

The first case that dealt with plea bargaining in Italy stated clearly that while plea
bargaining was accepted in Italy, the system could not change to a purely adversarial system,
being contrary to the principles of civil law.33 Since then however the system of plea bargaining
has been unilaterally accepted without much in the way of criticism or concern.

Considering the codification of plea bargaining into law and the general acceptance of
plea bargaining in the judiciary of Italy, the criminal jurisprudence now to a large degree
includes plea bargaining in any case where it is plausible, considering the much vaster
limitations that Italy puts upon its usage.

33
Constitutional Court, decision nr. 313 of1990, http://www.cortecostituzionale.it/default.do

Page |8
 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCES

Plea bargaining is markedly different substantially and procedurally in India, Italy and
the United States. Italy forms one extreme, where the scope and ambit of the plea bargaining
system is limited, restricted only to imprisonments of five years, thus only for minor crimes.
Furthermore, Italian plea bargaining involves pleading entirely guilty to all charges,
substantially different from the other two countries. While Italy is currently an adversarial
system, this is a product of possessing a civil law system.

The United States forms the other extreme; plea bargaining can be applied to each and
every crime committed. Accused can take up all forms of plea bargaining – charge bargaining
and sentence bargaining – in the hopes of concessions, which most of the time does occur. In
the US cases not decided through plea bargaining are the rarity with most defendants pleading
guilty from the very beginning. The negative light that a conviction through plea bargaining is
far outweighed by the extended period of time the defendant would be jailed if he loses the
case, thus forcing them into plea bargaining. Procedurally, in the US all that is required is for
the prosecution to inform the court of the desired settlement, without any requirement for filing
of papers or forms.

India forms something of a middle path, a reflection of how India’s law is a

development of the laws of various other nations. While India allows for plea bargaining there
are substantial restrictions upon the same, however not to the degree of that in Italy.
Furthermore, the number of cases decided through plea bargaining is far fewer than the cases
of the United States. Procedurally however, India is much more complicated, needing to go
through the specific processes specified in S.265A onwards.

The question of which system is the best for justice and efficiency is a debatable issue.
While the criminal system in the United States allows for quick disposal of justice, and thus
efficiency, it does so at the possible cost of justice itself. On the other hand, India is steeped
with procedural delays, especially for the bigger cases that cannot be plea bargained. Italy
prevents concessions to be provided to criminal who wish to repent, people who deserve
concessions and must be treated separately from the ‘true’ criminals. This question can be

Page |9
slightly better approached when discussing the various advantages and disadvantages of the
same.

ADVANTAGES

The primary intention behind plea bargaining and the biggest argument for the validity
of plea bargaining is the speed and efficiency in administering justice. Instead of going through
long trials and staggered delays in getting the court judgement, an agreement is reached before
the case reaches the court. Thus the judge merely has to review the case on the basis of the
evidence and not the arguments and can thus pronounce a verdict that won’t be challenged by
either side. This substantially reduces the burden upon not just the courts themselves but also
the judges who preside over them. Furthermore, more people have the opportunity to present
their case to the court if more cases get processed and thus more people get access to justice.
One of the primary problems with the justice system, particularly in India, is the lack of
accessibility, part of which can be attributed to the large delays, while the American system is
much more accessible due to the efficiency it possesses.34

Many of those who agree to a plea bargain are assumed to be those who wish to repent
for their crimes. Those who wish to repent for their crimes merit being treated separate to those
who knowingly committed a crime and are willing to commit it again. The US is much more
forgiving in that respect, following the ‘American Dream’ of turning over a new leaf and
becoming a better man. India and Italy are more cynical to the same, believing crimes of a
certain gravity cannot be forgiven, however they too endorse this principle to a degree.

A subsidiary advantage, one primarily used in the US, is the use of plea bargaining to
get testimony from an accused of a small crime to get evidence against another of a much more
serious crime and is used to take down mob families. A small perp caught for a petty crime like
stealing would be given six months’ jail time instead of years if he gave testimony against the
mob lord, thus allowing the disruption of a much bigger issue.35

34
This is spoken about in the Law Commission Reports and the Manimath Committee Report, but also in
judgements defending the constitutionality of the American system
35
Judge Peter Messite, Plea Bargaining in Various Criminal Systems, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, May 2010, last
accessed at
https://www.law.ufl.edu/_pdf/academics/centers/cgr/11th_conference/Peter_Messitte_Plea_Bargaining.pdf on
07-08-16

P a g e | 10
DISADVANTAGES

The first and most principled disadvantage is the loss of justice involved with plea
bargaining. Without allowing a careful examination of arguments and evidence at hand, the
level of scrutiny is far less and thus there is a much higher possibility of a loss to justice
delivered. There is an increased chance of the innocent being given harsh sentences or the
guilty given far too lenient a sentence. Further there is a strong sense of a lack of justice,
particularly of the retributive form, to the victim and to society as a whole. A convict getting a
lenient sentence sets a bad example to the society as a whole and a lack of satisfaction and trust
in the justice system. This is especially prevalent in the United States and to a degree in India
as well.36

The second issue is more cynical and pragmatic in its approach as it questions the
voluntariness with which the accused apply for plea bargaining. One of the conditions to plea
bargaining in all countries is that it must be voluntary on the accused’s side. However in
actuality plea bargaining seems to be a system of coercions and promises in an effort to entice
the accused to plea bargain, thus getting a ‘win-win’ situation for the prosecution. The
prosecution would rack up charges, many of them false, in an effort to scare the accused into
agreeing to a plea bargain. Innocents often take up a plea bargain in the fear of the consequences
in losing as well as the lengthy time it takes to go through a case on its merits, particularly with
the availability of appeals. Furthermore, those who appear to be repentant are often not,
questioning the voluntariness of plea bargains even more. Plea bargains in essence become
merely business deals, however at the cost of justice itself. This is far more noticeable when
considering the fact that other countries have adopted a system fitted specifically to the
American culture which does not completely translate to the other countries, such as India. 37

One final argument against plea bargaining is that in cases where there is more than one
accused, the accused is always going to testify against the other, regardless of actual innocence
or guilt, for the chance of a concession on his sentence. This forms what is known as the
‘prisoner’s dilemma’ and is the most common reason for countries to not allow plea bargaining.

36
Sonam Kathuria, The Bargain has been Struck: A Case For Plea Bargaining in India, NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL
OF INDIA, BANGALORE, last accessed at http://www.manupatra.co.in/newsline/articles/Upload/3BEB7B04-1EE3-
48EB-8716-279FA2B9AF8A.pdf on 07-08-2016
37
Id.

P a g e | 11
 SUGGESTIONS AND REFORMS

Looking at the various advantages and disadvantages, it is clear that certain reforms can
be made with respect to India. The first would be with respect to the power and authority of
the judges. While explicitly the law allows the judge to reject or change the sentence this rarely
happens and law impliedly wishes for the judges to accept the sentence offered. There must be
an increased ambit in the power the judges possess with regards to the sentence and the trial.
There must further be a check upon the judges themselves to prevent complacency. It is far
easier for a judge to accept whatever sentence he is told, however this is not in the spirit of
justice and could often result in the innocent held guilty and the guilty handed lenient sentences.

Further there should be far more emphasis on determining the case itself, if not by the
judge then by the defence and prosecution with an impartial mediator who judges what the
appropriate sentence should be based on the facts and evidence at hand. While this does make
the trials slightly more cumbersome, it would still be faster and does not put the same degree
of burden upon the court. In status quo the prosecution states a sentence which oftentimes the
defendant has no choice but to accept. There needs to be a higher level of review of the cases,
a task which the defence attorney cannot solely take upon himself with his current level of
power and influence in the court.

These suggestions help to a degree however the degree to which plea bargaining is more
beneficial than detrimental is questionable. It cannot be doubted that there is a need in India
for quicker justice systems, nevertheless plea bargaining in its current state is not enough.

P a g e | 12
 CONCLUSION

Plea bargaining is evidently different in different countries, tangibly so when

comparing common and civil law countries. The basic principle behind it however remains
intact. Criminals who plead guilty and are willing to repent or aid in other work for delivering
justice should be given concessions. Further all criminal systems the world around are highly
inefficient and slow, a problem that must be combatted for effective administration of justice.

Looking at the various disadvantages, some more destructive than others when
comparatively analysing them, it can be seen that they are not minor in nature. Each one poses
a serious question as to the legitimacy behind plea bargaining and must be solved in order to
accept plea bargaining as a system.

The current state of plea bargaining in India is not at the level it aspires to be at, with
significant problems that impede its effectiveness. There needs to be significant changes to the
way in which such applications are processed. A serious look at the quality of judgements
passed on the same is needed. As it stands however, plea bargaining has to a degree helped to
combat the dreadful processing rate of application to the court, a problem India suffered from
far more than any other nation and can indeed be a solution for the future if properly worked
upon.

P a g e | 13