INTRODUCTION

Need For Reform in the Criminal Justice System

When the prevalent law fails to impart social equality; when the law in the land fails to be
efficient in its approach; and the when the law in the land fails to provide stability to the
society, the need for a new law is felt. Civilisation of a country speaks as to how important
the community considers the dispensation of criminal justice to orderly living with
liberalisation and globalisation; the problem seems to have assumed critical importance not
only to individual litigants but also as a society as a whole. The criminal justice system is
crucial to the survival of all other economies and social institution.1

Indian Judiciary is known for impartiality, independence and justice oriented approach in its
decisions. However, the capabilities of the Indian Judiciary were in doubt as the people of
India were losing faith in its criminal justice delivery system. The biggest challenge that
the judiciary was facing was that of delay in the dispensation of Justice. Heavy backlog of
cases in the courts and inevitable delay in the dispensation of justice had grown so much that
the public developed a doubt over the efficiency of the Indian Legal System. A lose in faith
meant destruction of the established system and thereby the fabric and the status of the Indian
society. In one of the cases that came before the Supreme Court in which cognizance of delay
in delivery of justice was taken cognizance of is the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of
Bihar2. The court in this case mentioned that

“There is also one other infirmity of the legal and judicial system which is
responsible for system gross denial of justice to the under trial prisoners and that is
the notorious delay in disposal of case. It is a sad reflection on the legal and
judicial system that the trial of an accused should not even commence for a ling
number of years. Even a delay of one year in the commencement of trial is bad
enough; how much worse could it be when the delay is as long as 3 or 5 or7 or
even 10 years. Speedy trial is of the essence of criminal justice and there can be no
doubt that delays in trial by itself constitutes denial of justice”.

In the words of the Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System {2000}3,

1
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.Y.Eqbal, High Court Jharkhand, “Concept of Plea-Bargaining”, Nyaya Deep 2008.
2
AIR1979SC1360
3
Government of India, Ministry of Hme Affairs “Report of the committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice
System” { vol1, march 2000}
 “Quality of justice suffers not only when an innocent person is punished or a guilty
person is exonerated, but when there is enormous delay in deciding the criminal
cases”.

The figures of backlogs are the biggest challenge that the judicial system had been facing. In
the High Court’s there were over 35 lakh cases pending at the end of December 2005. In the
Subordinate Courts, 2.57 crores of cases had piled up. It is important to observe that a
substantially large fraction of the pending litigation comes under the class of old case of High
Courts aline; this ratio is about 15%, which is unduly high. Equally alarming is the quite large
numbers of these cases are on the criminal side.

Thus, it had become of utmost importance to reform the problem of delays at the earliest and
provide justice to citizens of country in a reasonable time.

According to the National Crime research bureau (NCRB) study, crime in India 2002, it was
reported that some three quarters of all persons held in Indian Prisons had not been sentenced
to jail, but were under-trials, that is awaiting trial. Nearly 2,20,000 case took more than 2
years to reach court and about 25,600 exhausted before they completed. A large number of
prison inmates awaiting trial have already been imprisoned longer than the most rigorous
sentence that they could ever be given for the offence they had been alleged to have been
committed.

Speedy justice is a mandate for the society. Prolonged trial causes untold harassment to
victims. Many a times inordinate delay contributes to acquittal of guilty person either because
the evidence is lost or because of lapse of the time or the witness do not remember all the
details or do not come forward to give evidence due to threats, inducement or sympathy.
Speedy trial though recognized, as an essential feature of right to fair trial , an essential
extended to a citizen under the purview of ‘right to life’ guaranteed under Article 21 of our
Constitution, had so far remained a distant reality in our criminal Justice Process.

Various strategies and tools have been used in various Jurisdictions to lessen the burden of
trials, and ensure speedy disposal of cases Orr such strategy is Plea-bargaining, which is
presently in place in a number of countries .The Criminal Law [Amendment) Act. 2005 has
introduced the concept of Alternative Dispute Resolution into the criminal justice system. It
affords all members of the community to resolve cases without going to trial the accused, the
Victim and prosecution settle the outcome between themselves and the Judge gives his
approval. The implementation of ADR mechanism in Criminal Justice process was to provide
speedy trail and inexpensive justice to the people. It is hoped that ADR in this context will be
able to bring the accused and the victim of the crime together and help them to reach a mutual
satisfactory disposition that will both compensate the victim and re-establish contact between
the accused and the victim. . It also enables the prosecutor to try and cut a deal with the
accused to determine what his punishment will be. e. g. a fine, community service and
thereafter, punishment will be enforced by the court.

In United States of America, over 90% cases are settled by plea-bargaining. The United States
experiment shows that plea-bargaining helps the disposal of the accumulated cases and
expedites delivery of justice.

Since Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005 has been passed introducing the chapter XXIA
on plea-bargaining in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 this section explores the basic
concept of plea-bargaining as a reform or curb backlogs and delay the Indian Criminal Justice
process.
CONCEPT OF PLEA-BARGAINING

There is no perfect or simple definition of Plea-bargaining. As the term implies, Plea

bargaining involves an active negotiation process. Whereby offender is allowed to confess his
guilt in Court if he so desires in exchange of lighter punishment that would have been fixed
for such offence.i6 Plea-bargaining usually occurs prior to trial but may occur any time before
a judgment is rendered. Black's Law Dictionary defines it as:

“[t]he process whereby the accused and the prosecutor in a criminal case work out a
mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. It usually involves the
defendant's pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of a multi-
count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that possible for the graver charge.”

From the point of view of the accused, it means that he trades conviction and a lesser sentence,
for a long, expensive and tortuous process of undergoing trial where he may be convicted. In
practice, it represents not so much of "mutual satisfaction" as perhaps 'mutual
acknowledgment" of the strengths or weakness of both the charges and the defences, against a
backdrop of crowded criminal courts and court case dockets. For the vast majority of cases,
Plea-bargaining-also known as negotiating a settlement, coping a plea, or copping out-is the
most important step in the criminal justice process in United Stated. Instead, a negotiated
guilty plea arrived at through the interactions of prosecutors, defence lawyers, and judges
determine what will happen to most defendants. Thus, it involves an active negotiation process
by ehich the defendant offers to exchange a plea of guilty, thereby waiving his right to trial,for
some concessions in charges or for a sentence recommendation. The offender is allowed to
confess his guikt in court if he so desires in exchange of a lighter punishment that would have
been fixed for such offence.

Plea-bargaining can be classified into three types:

1. Charge bargaining
2. Sentence bargaining
3. Fact bargaining

Charge bargaining: It is such bargain in which a defendant pleads guilt to reduced charges. It
occurs when defendant pleads guilty to necessarily included offences.
Sentence bargaining: It involves assurance of lighter or alternative sentences in return for a
defendant’s pleading guilty. It sometimes occurs in high profile cases, where the prosecutor
does not want to reduce the charges against the defendant, usually for fear of how the
newspapers will react. A sentence bargain nay allow the prosecutor to obtain a conviction to
the most serious charge, while assuring the defendant of an acceptable sentence.

Fact bargaining: In it negotiation involves an admission to certain facts stipulating to the

truth and existence of provable facts thereby eliminating the need for the prosecutor to have to
prove themn in return for an agreement not to introdeuce certain other facts into evidence.

In 1976, Justice Potter Stexsart revealed that the heart and soul of lea bargaining is in the
Yenefit it entails to all concerned in a criminal case." Plea-bargaining is the primary
apparatus through '*hich judges, public prosecutors, accused. investigating officer and
victim cooperate and work together their individual and collective goals.> In most
the Plea Bargain is to avoid the uncertainty or the trial, and minimize the risk of undesirable
results for either side.r The reasons for Plea-bargaining by either side may be several and are
as follov,s:

For Accused- the principal benefit of Plea-bargaining, for most of the accused, is to receive
a lighter sentence for a less severe charge than what might result from taking the case to
trial and losing. Another fairly obvious benefit that accused can reap from Pleabargaining is
that if they're represented by private counsel; they can save a 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 benefits4 as well such as:

- Getting Out of Jail.

- Resolving the Matter Quickly.
- Having Fewer or Less Serious Offerres on One's Record.
- Avoiding hussles of finding a good lawyer for preparing the trial
- Avoiding publicity

For victim- plea-bargaining is a victim oriented reform. It provides respect and consideration
towards victims and their rights. It does so by giving greater choices to them in satisfactory
disposition of the case and by providing a scheme for compulsory compensation to victim of

4
Attorneys Paul Brgman & Sara J, Bernman_Barrett, the criminal law handbook: know your rights
crime once the plea-bargaining is complete and then hears the parties on quantum of
punishment and possibility of probation.

For judges and prosecutors, the benefit they get is that plea-bargaining helps courts to manage
caseloads.

HISTORICAL PERSPECI'IVE

The plea bargain was a prosecutorial tool used only episodically before the 190' century. In
America. "George Fisher in his book Plea Bargaining Trimuph observed" it can be traced
almost to the very emergence of public prosecution, Plea-bargaining was limited to those
rare cases in which prosecutors could unilaterally dictate accused sentence. Plea Bargaining
is arguably another outgrowth of later- 19th-century industrialization.

In 1633, Galileo gets house arrest from the Inquisition in exchange for his reciting
penitential psalms weekly and recanting Copernican heresies. In 193 1, Al Capone brags
about his light sentence for pleading guilty to tax evasion and Prohibition violations. The
judge then declares that he isn't bound by the bargain, and Capone does seven and a half
years in Alcatraz.

In 1969. to avoid execution, James Earl Ray pleads guilty to assassinating Martin Luther
King Jr: and gets 99 years. In 1973, Spiro Agnew resigns the vice presidency and pleads no
contest to the charge of failing to report income; he gets three years' probation and a $ I fine
(roughly one-third of the amount at issue).

In 1990, facing serious federal charges of insider trading, Michael Milken pleaded to lesser
charges of securities fraud; soon after, his sentence is reduced to 2 years.
Salient features Of Plea-Bargaining:

A new Chapter (Chapter X XI 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 Plea-bargaining was introduced through
the Criminal l.aw (Amendment) Act, 2005 which was passed by Parliament in the winter
of' "the salient features are as follows: -

"The Plea-bargaining is applicable only in respect of those offences for which punishment of
imprisonment is up to a period of 7 years.

It docs not apply where such offence affects the socio- economic condition of the country or
has been committed against a woman or a child below the age of 14 years. The application
for Plea-bargaining should be filed by the accused voluntarily.

A person accused of an offence may file an application for Plea-bargaining in the court in
which such offence is pending for trial.

The complainant and the accused are given time to work out a mutually satisfactory
disposition of the case, which may include giving to the victim by the accused, compensation
and other expenses incurred during the case.

Where a satisfactory disposition of the case has been worked out, the Court shall dispose of
the case by sentencing the accused to one-fourth of the punishment provided or extendable,
as the case may be for such offence.

The statement or facts stated by an accused in an application for plea-bargaining shall not be
used for any other purpose other than for plea-bargaining,

"I he judgment delivered by the Court in the case of plea-bargaining shall be final and no
appeal shall lie in any court against such judgment
 PLEA-BARGAINING IN INDIA

Speedy trial is the essence of criminal justice and delay in trial by itself constitutes denial of
justice. "Pendency for long periods operates as an engine of oppression," said the Supreme
Court in a 1996 decision and issued directions to criminal courts to protect and effectuate the
right to life and liberty of the citizen5. The Supreme Court in Kandra Pehadiya rs State
ofBihar6 held "It is a crying shame upon our ad-judicatory system which keeps men in jail for
years on end without a trial." The court in a compassionate expression observed..."no one
shall be allowed to be confined in jail for more than a reasonable period of time, which we
think cannot and should not exceed one year for a session trial... we fail to understand why
our justice system has become so de-humanized that lawyers and judges do not feel a sense
of revolt at caging people in jail for years without trial"

Mr. Justice K.G.Balakrishnan, pointed out at National Seminar on Delay in Administration of

Criminal Justice System, the State as a guardian of fundamental rights of its citizens is duty-
bound to ensure speedy trial and avoid excessively long delays in trial of criminal cases that
could result in grave miscarriage of justice. It is in the interest of all concerned that the guilt
or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible. There are a large number of
under trial prisoners in this country. In many cases, the accused is the head of a family and is
the only breadwinner; his responsibility is also towards the large family left behind him. It is
not only the accused but also other members of his family who suffer because of delay in
trial. Speedy trial ensures that a society is free of such vices. In many cases, large number of
persons are arrested and kept in custody. It is said that large percentage of jail population is of
under trial prisoners."

To reduce delay in disposing-off criminal cases the Law Commission recommended

introduction of "plea-bargaining" as an alternative method to deal with huge arrears of
criminal cases. This recommendation was supported by Dr. Justice Malimuth Committee. The
Code of Criminal Procedure has accordingly been amended by adding Chapter X XI-
consisting of 12 Sections. In the statement of objects and reasons of the Act it is mentioned
that disposal of criminal trials in the courts takes considerable time and in many cases trials
do not commence for as long as 3 to 5 years. In the given situation, plea-bargaining seems to
be the only universal remedy left to help from this situation. The Act was enforced with effect
from 5th July.2006.

5
(1966) MLJ (Cri) P549)
6
1981 Cr.L.J. 481
In so far as the criminal Justice delivery system in India is concerned, the situation is not
particularly satisfactory, especially in the District Courts.

Unless steps are taken to tackle the pendency of criminal cases in the district courts these
situations may spin out of control. It is common knowledge that in district court, the bulk of
cases relate to offences triable by Magistrates and i.e. where any reform should be
encouraged and would indeed be necessary.

POSITION PRIOR TO 2005

Prior to enactment of Criminal Law (Amendment] Act there was difference in approach of
judiciary and of legislature and legal luminaries of concept of plea-bargaining in our
Criminal procedure Code. Indian Judiciary prior to 2005 consistently opposed the
incorporation of plea-bargaining in our Criminal justice process as implicit in series of cases.
In Madanlal Ram Chandra v. State of Maharashtra7 the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the first
time made an observation in regard to the efficacy of plea-bargaining and observed, "In our
opinion it is very wrong for a court to enter into bargain of this character. Offences should be
tried and punished accordingly to the guilt of the accused. If the court thinks that leniency
can be shown on the fact of the case it may impose a lighter sentence. But the court should
never be party to a bargain by which money is recovered for the complainant through their
agency.”

Howevcr on the other hand, the twelfth Law commission of India, in their 142nd Report on
concessional treatment of offenders who chose to plead Guilty had cited would reduce
congestion in the incorporation of plea-bargaining. Commission also said that it would
lessen the congestion in jails, and result in more conviction. Besides, 75% of criminal cases
in US get decided on plea-bargaining. Based on an analysis of plea-bargaining, as it exists in
the United States report stated that the practice was not inconsistent either with the
constitution or the fairness principal. The commission conducted a survey to ascertain
whether the legal community was in support of plea-bargaining and also to gather opinions
on the applicability of the practice if the earlier response was in the affirmative. Of those
surveyed a high percentage was in favour of introducing the concept only to specified
offences. Further, the law in Law commission, in its 154th report, reiterated the need for
remedial legislative measures to reduce the delays in the disposal of criminal trial and

7
AIR 1968 SC 1267
appeals and also to alleviate the suffering of under trial prisoners. The 177th Report of the
Law commission, 2001 also sought to incorporate the concept of plea-bargaining."

Also Report of the committee on reforms of the criminal justice system, 2000 states that the
experience of the United States was an evidence of plea-bargaining being a means for the
disposal of accumulated cases and expediting the delivery of Criminal justice; the committee
thus affirmed the recommendation of the Law commission of India in its 142nd and 154th
reports.

Based on the above recommendation, legislature initiated a momentous reform. An

endeavor had been made to evolve such a scheme of plea-bargaining, which allays the fears
and apprehension entertained by the Indian Judiciary.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2005

A formal proposal for incorporating plea-bargaining into the India criminal justice system
was put forth in 2003 thorough the criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2003. H0'.sever, those
provision failed to come though and were reintroduced with slight changes through the
Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill 2005, which was passed by the Rajya Sabha on 13.12.2005
and by the Lok Sabha on 22.12.2005. The provisions were thus incorporated into the Code
as Chapter XXI-A through the criminal Law (Amendment) Act.. 2005.

If those provisions are properly examined, it will appear that section 265A (l) confines the
application of plea-bargaining to certain cases. It has been made clear that plea-bargaining
shall apply in respect of and accused against whom a charge sheet has been filed under section
173 accusing him of an offence punishable with imprisonment upto seven years. Plea-
bargaining shall not apply in connection with offences affecting the socio-economic condition
of the country or where such an offence has been committed against a woman or a child
below the age of 14 years.

Offences affecting socio-economic condition of the country can be notified by the Central
Government under Section 265A(2). A notification of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated I
July 2006 exists which has been issued sub-section (2) of Section 265A of the Code. Under
the said notification, offences, affecting the socio-economic conditions of the country have
been notified, which are outside the purview of plea-bargaining. Those notified offences are:

i. Dowry prohibition acct, 1961

ii. The commission of sati prevention act, 1987
iii. The indecentrepresentation of women (prohibition) act, 1956
iv. The immoral traffic prevention act, 1956
v. Protection of womenfrom domestic violence act, 2005
vi. The infant milk substitutes, feeding bottles and infant foods(regulation of
production, supply and distribution) act, 1992
vii. Provisions of fruit products order 1995
viii. The provisions of meat food products orders, 1973
ix. Offences with respect to animals that find place on Schedule I and part II of
the Schedule II as well as offences related to altering the boundariws of
protected areas under wildlife (rotection) act, 1972
x. The scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) act,
1955\offences listed in sections 23 to 28 of the Juvenile justice ( care and
protection of children) act, 2000
xi. The army act, 1950
xii. The air force act, 1950
xiii. The navy act, 1957
xiv. Offences specified in sections59 to 81 and 83 of the delhi metro railway
(operation and maintenance) act, 2002
xv. The explosives act, 1984
xvi. Offences specified in sections 11 to 18 of the cable television networks (
regulation) act, 1955
xvii. Cinematograph act, 1952

Who can file an application for plea-bargaining?

According to section 265B these category of people can file such application-

i. Any accused person abive the age of 18 years and against whom a trial is pending
ii. The applicant should not be juvenile child covered under section 2(K) of the juvenile
justice (care and protection) act,200.
 iii. The accused should not have been convicted earlier for the same offence.{(section
265B(2)}

Contents Of The Application:

Section 265B (2) provides for the contents of the application as under-

i. A brief description of the case in connection with which the application is filed
including the offence of which the case relates.
ii. Such an application shall be filed with an affidavit sworn by the accused to the
extent that he has voluntarily filled it after understanding the nature of tjhe
punishment provided under the law for the offence.
iii. The aafidavit should also contain a statement that a Court under the same offence
has not previously convicted him.
iv. Such application should obviously contain the version of the accused about
mutually satisfactory disposition of the case.

On receipt of an application, the court under section 265B (3) shall send notice to the

i. The public prosecutor or the complainant as the case mayu be

ii. To the accused to appear on the date fixed for the case.

Then on the date fixed, when the accused appears, the Court shall examine the accused in
Camera and at that the other party shall not be present. After such examination the court shall
satisfy itself that the accused has filed the application voluntarily. This is provided under
section 265B (4)

If the Court is satisfied that the accused has filed the application voluntarily, it shall give time
to the Public Prosecutor or the complainant of the case and also to the accused to work out a
mutually satisfactory disposition of the case. Here negotiation is to take place and such
 negotiation may also include the issue of paying compensation and other Court expenses to
the Victim. Thereafter, a date shall be fixed for further hearing of the case. This is provided
under Section 265B (4) (b).

But if the Court finds that the application has not been filed voluntarily by the accused or that
the Court for the same offence has previously convicted the accused. Court shall proceed in
accordance with the provisions of the Code from the stage when the application has been
under sub-section (l). The Case will revert back to trail. This is provided under section 265B
(4) (b).

Section 265C is very important as it gives the guidelines for mutually satisfactory disposition
of the case. Those guidelines are:

i. If the case is instituted on a police report, the Court shall issue notice to the Public
Prosecutor, to the Police Officer who investigated the case, to the accused and to the
victim to participate in the meeting to work out a mutual satisfactory disposition of
the case.
ii. In the course of such negotiation it shall be duty of the court to ensure that the parties
participating in the meeting carry out the entire process voluntarily. In such meeting
the accused may participate with his pleader. This is provided under section 265C (a).
iii. Similarly in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the court shall issue
notice to the accused and the Victim to participate in a meeting to work out a mutually
satisfactory disposition of the case and here also the Court's duty is to ensure that the
entire process of working out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case is carried
on voluntarily by the parties. Here both the victim and the accused, if they so desire,
may participate in such meeting with their respective pleader.

Where mutually satisfactory disposition of the case has been worked out under Section 265 D,
the Court shall dispose of the case in the following manner: -

i. The court may award compensation to the victim in accordance with such disposition
under Section 265D.
ii. Hear the parties on the quantum of punishment and also.
iii. On the question of releasing the accused on probation of good conduct after admonition
under Section 36() or
iv. For dealing with the accused under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or
any other law for the time being in force. All these are provided under Section 265 E (a).

After hearing the parties under Section 265E (a) if the Courts is of the view that Section 360
of the Code or the Probation of Offenders Act or any other law for the time being is
attracted, the Court may release the accused on probation or provide the benefit of any such
law as the case may be. This is provided under Section 265E (b).

Under Section 265E(c), if the Court, after hearing the parties, finds that minimum
punishment has been provided under the law for the offence committed by the accused, it
may sentence the accused to half of such minimum punishment. This is provided under
Section 265E(c). But if the offence committed by the accused is not covered either under
Clause (b) or (c), then the Court may sentence the accused to one fourth of the ounishment
provided or extendable for the offence committed.
At the time of sentencing, the Court will be guided by the principles of set off under Section
428 of the Code in the same manner as in respect of imprisonment under other provisions of
the Code. is provided under section 265 (L).

The judgments of the Court on plea-bargaining shall be final and no appeal shall lie in any
Court against the said judgment subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article
136 and jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution and a
Court while discharging its function on plea-bargaining shall have all powers vested in it in
respect of bail, trail of offences and other matters relating to disposal as are given to a Court
under the Code This appears from a combined reading of Section 265F,, 265G/' and 265H.

The facts stated by an accused in an application for plea-bargaining under Section 265B shall
not be used for any other purpose except for the purpose of this Chapter (see Section265K)
The provisions of plea-bargaining under the Code have vested the Judicial Office with the
responsibility to ensure that the entire process of negotiation is carried on voluntarily by the
accused. The provisions have also given the accused the required secrecy jn as much as he
will be examined by the Court in carncra• where nobody Will be present and on such
examination. the Court will be satisfied about the voluntary nature of the accused
participation in the negotiation. In the entire negotiation at least there Will be partjcipatjon of
tour sides namely the accused the prosecution, the investigating Officer and the vjcurn and oc
the Cour sides lawyers can represent three. So. the lawyer's cooperation of the vital
importance for success of these provisions. Therefore, all the above-mentioned parties must
work this mutually satisfactory disposition of cases jointly and this requires a changed
mindset on their parts who are involved in the entire process of negotiation.

Under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, there is no provision of holding Lok Adulat
in connection with criminal matters. In the provision of Section 19(5) of this Act, it is made
clear that Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or law relating to an
offence not compoundable under law. Compounding of offences under section 320 of the
Code is only confirmed to the offences, which are mentioned in the table appended to the
Code. But majority of the offences are outside the table. A perusal of the table appended to
Section 320 of the code would show that in matter of compounding, initiative has to come
mostly from the victim. An accused has not been conferred much right under Section 320 of
the Code. Therefore, under provision 320 of the code an accused in a criminal case has not
been given any right to have expeditious disposal of the criminal case against him. This right
is given under the plea-bargaining Chapter i.e. Chapter XXIA of the Code.
 CONCLUSION
Plea-bargaining has over the years, emerged as a prominent feature of the American criminal
justice system so much so that it has now become the norm instead of the exception to the
general rule as was anticipated. The scheme of plea-bargaining in India is being utilised by the
accused, victim and the judiciary today. According to a report of the national crime research
bureau on the disposal of special local laws criminal cases in 2015, the lowest percentage of
pending cases was that for offences against the Excise Act (72.9%). However, the conviction
rate in special local laws criminal cases is high (92.4% overall) but in IPC criminal cases the
conviction rate is very poor (46.9% overall). For serius crimes a new urge for speedy trials is
demonstrated specially after the Nirbhaya rape incident. This is also due to delay in not-so
serious offences which reflects also results in the delay of very serious offence as the court is
overburdened. Even after the advent of plea-bargaining in the Indian Justice Delivery system,
the situation is bad. Although, it is not available for the offences grave in nature, but the delay
in other cases also delays them.

Plea-bargaining in India may be successful as in the United States of America where over
75% cases are disposed through it. The only thing that India needs is the acquaintance with
the knowledge of such developments in law. Even after 12 years of incorporation of plea-
bargaining in the Indian criminal justice system, people don’t know about it and so the
advocates and the intermediaries take ill-advantage of it. If the advocates have humanitarian
view then piling up of cases would have been a problem of the past. But this is the ill-fate of
this nation that everyone seeks only his own interest. Mahatma Gandhi once said that this
country has enough to fill stomachs but not enough to fill treasuries.

The concept of plea-bargaining is very worthy in the context of India. This is a boon for the
Indian criminal justice delivery system. Although, it has not proved to be as effective as it is
in America, but it has reduced the number of pending cases significantly. It is expected that
more parties will opt for plea-bargaining in the future.