Open Access Research Article
“AN ANALYSIS OF PLEA-BARGAINING MECHANISM”: A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN USA AND INDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
“AN ANALYSIS OF PLEA-BARGAINING
MECHANISM”: A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN USA AND INDIA
AUTHORED BY - DEVINDER SINGH ANAND
& JYOTI MANGAL
Designation: Research Scholars
Affiliated Institution: Panjab
University, Chandigarh
Contact No: 9855005499
ABSTRACT
“After the passage of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act of 2005 in 2006, plea bargaining became a part of the criminal
justice system. Around 10 years have passed since the very introduction of the
notion into the criminal code of India. The intent of this paper is to evaluate
the viability of the notion in India by considering the relevant statutes and
court rulings. The paper will also take a look at the American approach to plea
bargaining, as it was the first of its kind. The paper will also compare the
American and Indian approaches of plea bargaining to highlight the advantages
and disadvantages of each system. The paper will touch briefly on the aspects
of the American model of plea bargaining that have contributed to its unique
and successful status. The research can be applied to improving the efficiency
and effectiveness of the Indian model of plea bargaining in the court system.”
Keywords: Plea
Bargaining, compromise, negotiate, criminal
1. INTRODUCTION
The term "plea bargaining"
is used to describe the negotiating process that takes place before a trial
begins between the accused and the prosecution. In plea bargaining, the
accused, and the prosecutor or victim negotiates a deal in which the accused
agrees to admit guilt in exchange for a reduced sentence, dismissal of charges,
or other benefits. Across the United States, the judicial system has largely
embraced and upheld the validity of the practice of plea bargaining. When it
comes to plea negotiations, the adage "justice delayed is justice
denied" is extremely important. Plea bargaining is a pre-trial agreement
in which the accused offers to plead guilty in exchange for specific
concessions from the prosecution. It is a deal in which a defendant pleads
guilty to a lower crime and the prosecutors agree to drop more serious charges.
It is not available for all types of crimes, for example, someone cannot
announce plea bargaining after committing serious crimes or crimes punishable
by death or life imprisonment.[1]
The courts often accept one of three sorts of plea bargains:
1.1 CHARGE BARGAINING
First, there's "charge
bargaining," in which the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lower
charge in exchange for the dismissal of a more serious one. In exchange, all
other charges will be dropped. This sort of plea deal is by much the norm rather
than the exception.
1.2 SENTENCE BARGAINING
A sort of plea-bargaining in which
“the accused admits guilt in exchange for a reduced sentence than what he would
have received if the Court had found him guilty of the commission of the
offence via the procedure of law.”
1.3 FAC.T
BAR.GAINING
In this sort of plea bargaining, “the
parties to the litigation agree to submit a set of facts of the subject before
the Court and they jointly do not bring any additional fact to the notice of
the Court. In most jurisdictions, this form of plea bargaining is not
recognized as legal in the eyes of the courts.” The administration of justice
is hampered when parties negotiate over facts, which is why this practice is
prohibited. When parties engage in fact bargaining, they may withhold critical
information from the court, which might lead to a flawed ruling. The Court will
have a more difficult time determining what happened and protecting the rights
of the innocent when parties negotiate the facts.
2. POSITION PRIOR TO THE
ENACTMENT OF THE CRIM.INAL LAW (AME.NDMENT)
ACT OF 2005
As of before the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act of 2005, plea bargaining was not an option for Indian
defendants. The Indian judicial system does not recognize the use of plea
bargains. Since its inception, plea bargaining has been deemed illegal by
Indian courts. As a crime is considered to be a wrong against the state rather
than a person, courts in India often did not permit plea bargaining. Sometimes,
the accused might avoid punishment altogether by reaching a plea bargain with
the state. There would be far-reaching consequences for society's deterrent
value and the criminal system if this happened.
The courts in India were certain that
plea bargaining was not a part of Indian criminal law. In Madanlal Ramchander Daga v. State
of Ma.harashtra[2] one of the earliest cases in which
the Supreme Court of India considered the legality of plea bargaining, the
Supreme Court ruled that plea bargaining is illegal under the circumstances. As
was also said, the Court must have a trial of the accused and make a decision
based on the merits of the case as shown by the evidence presented at trial. If
the Court determines that a smaller sentence than the maximum allowed by law is
more appropriate, it may impose that sentence on the defendant. Yet the court
should not negotiate a plea bargain with the defendant since such deals are not
recognized by the law.
In Ka.sambhai v. State of Gujarat,[3] the Supreme Court held “the practice of plea bargaining to be against
public policy.”
In K.achhia Patel Shantilal Koderlal v. State of G.ujarat & Anr.,[4] The
Supreme Court of India declared that plea bargaining is a "very
repugnant activity" that has no place in Indian law. As the court pointed
out at the time, plea bargaining is a process that may only foster greater
corruption and possible collusions. In India, if plea bargaining is legalized,
it might taint the integrity of the judicial process.
“In its 142nd, 154th, and 177th
reports, the Law Commission of India recommended for the implementation of Plea
Bargaining. The Law Commission suggested including the new XXIA in the Criminal
Procedure Code in its 154th Report. Moreover, the report cited the Law
Commission's 142nd Report, which explained the concept's rationale, its
effective operation in the United States, and the process by which it should be
given statutory expression in detail. The Report suggested that as a trial
measure, the abovementioned concept be applied to offences punished by less
than seven years in jail and/or fine, such as those covered under section 320
of the Code. It was also suggested that plea bargaining be allowed to take into
account the seriousness of the offence and the punishment that would be
imposed. Offenders Inmates with a history of criminal behaviour, those accused
of serious socioeconomic crimes, and those accused of crimes against women and
children were found to be ineligible for the aforementioned institution. The
177th Report from the Law Commission reaffirms and expands upon the 154th
Report's recommendations. In addition, the United States' experience has been
cited as proof that plea bargaining may help clear up backlogged cases and
speed up the delivery of criminal justice in the Report on the reform of the
criminal justice system, 2000, chaired by Justice Malimath.”[5]
Until the Criminal L.aw (Amendment) Act of 2005, which formally authorized plea
bargaining in India, the courts here consistently had seen the practice as
unconstitutional and improper in the eyes of the law.
3. POSITION AFTER THE
ENAC.TMENT
OF THE CRIMINAL LAW (AME.NDMENT) ACT OF 2005
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act,
2005, approved during the winter session of the Indian Parliament, added
Sections 265A to 265L to the Criminal Code of Procedure, making up Chapter
XXI-A. These sections discussed the structure of the Indian plea-bargaining
system. This describes the whole process of plea bargaining in India.
Anybody facing charges that have a
potential jail term of seven years may enter into a plea-bargaining process.
However, if you have been charged with a socioeconomic crime, a crime against
women, or a crime against a child less than 14 years old, you will not be
eligible for a plea bargain.[6] As
lawmakers didn't specify which crimes qualified as "socioeconomic"
for the purposes of plea bargaining, the government was given
discretionary authority over the classification of such crimes for the time
being.[7]
“On July 11, 2006, the Central
Government issued Notification No. S01042 (II)[8]
which included a list of socio-economic offences for which the scheme of plea
bargaining is not authorized. Plea bargaining is not available to those accused
of violating the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention from
Atrocities) Act, 1991, the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the Protection of Woman
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles,
and Infants Foods (Regulation of Production, supply, and distribution) Act,
1992, etc., as stated in the notification. In the event of a child or juvenile,
as specified in Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act of 2000, this Chapter pertaining to the plea-bargaining plan
shall not apply.”[9]
The accused must submit a plea
bargain application to the court hearing their case.[10]
The application must include a sworn affidavit from the defendant affirming
that he is making the request out of his own free choice and not under the
influence of anybody else. The Court must notify the prosecution of the
application's receipt and verify, during the trial, that the accused is acting
willingly in making the application. Section 265-C of the Code outlines the
procedure for reaching a plea bargain between the accused and the prosecution.[11]
The court must then write a report detailing the outcome of the conference
between the prosecutor and the defendant in an effort to achieve a plea
bargain.[12]
“When the accused and the prosecutor have met and completed all the
necessary procedures under Section 265-D, the court must hear arguments from both
sides regarding the appropriate severity of the penalty.[13]
Good conduct releases are possible under many laws, including Section 360 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Probation of Offenders Act of 1958, and
others. The Court can either impose the minimum punishment specified for the
offence, which has already been agreed upon by the accused and the public
prosecutor, or it can impose a greater sentence. If the minimum punishment for
an offence is not specified, the court may impose a sentence equal to
one-quarter of the maximum penalty.” Therefore, the time spent in custody cannot be counted
against the jail term.[14]
In instances where the
plea-bargaining procedure has been used, the ruling of the first court is
final. The ruling is final and no further appeals may be filed.[15]
But, under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, an appeal can be filed with
the relevant High Court, and under Article 32, an appeal can be filed with the
Supreme Court. The Court has the same authority in plea bargaining matters as
it has in the trial of other criminal offences, as provided for in the Code of
Criminal Procedure.[16]
Plea bargaining must adhere to the
guidelines laid down in Section 265A through Section 265L of Chapter XXI-A of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. No court may depart from the method outlined
above. “The court to which the plea bargain application is filed may reject it
outright if the accused does not follow the proper procedure.”
“Plea bargaining is a process where the accused and the victim work together
to find a resolution to the case that is satisfactory to both parties.” To what extent the accused is
required to compensate the victim or prosecutor is a matter of negotiation
between the two parties. The application must be made of the accused's own free
choice, without any influence from outside sources. It is important that both
the prosecution and the victim join into the plea negotiating process
voluntarily and not because of any outside pressure. The victim needs to accept
the compromise that the prosecution and the accused have worked out. “If the prosecutor and the accused cannot
reach a plea agreement, the court must issue a report detailing the failure of
the process under Section 265-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure between the
accused and the prosecutor, and must then proceed with the trial of the accused
in a manner consistent with the procedure of law.”
4. JUDICIAL RESPONSE
As was mentioned above, Indian courts
have always seen plea bargaining as improper contrary to the constitution until
the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2005 legally authorized the practice.
As can be shown in the following
discussion of a few handful of cases, the Indian court has had a complicated
relationship with plea bargaining since its introduction to the country's legal
system.
In its analysis of plea bargaining, “the Gujarat High Court noted that the very
object of the law is to provide easy, cheap, and expeditious justice by
resolution of disputes, including the trial of criminal cases, and that given
the current realistic profile of the pendency and delay in the administration
of law and justice, fundamental reforms are inevitable. Nothing should be in a
fixed position. It is, therefore, a sort of remedy, and it will bring something
new to the field of judicial reforms.”[17]
In Pardeep Gupta v. State,[18]
the Court said, "The trial court's rejection of the plea bargain shows
that the learned trial court had not bothered to look into the provisions of
chapter XXI A of Code of Criminal Procedure meant for the purpose of plea
bargaining and rejected the application on the ground that since the applicant
is involved in an offence under section 120-B Indian Penal Code and the role of
the applicant was not lesser than the other co-accused." The petitioner
has been arrested for a number of crimes, but none of them carried a sentence
of more than seven years in prison. While deciding whether to grant a plea
bargain, it is important to evaluate the circumstances surrounding the accused
person, the nature of the crime, etc. The High Court ordered the lower court to
reevaluate the defendant's plea bargain in light of the relevant articles of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, rather than doing so on a whim.
The low number of reported cases
resolved by plea bargaining in the Indian criminal justice system is indicative
of the dismal position in which this process currently finds itself, as seen by
an examination of pre- and post-amendment decisions. Interesting to note is
that prior to the Criminal Law Amendment
Act of 2005, judges often rejected plea-bargain cases. Although things have
improved somewhat after 2005, this important innovation in the Criminal Law
Justice System is still widely neglected despite its narrow field of
application and the judicial system's ambivalent attitude towards it.
5. PLEA BARGAINING: A
COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN USA AND INDIA
In light of the foregoing, it is
clear that the Indian model of plea-bargaining is insufficient to solve the
problem of pending cases. Unfortunately, plea bargaining has not yet become a
common method of justice administration in India. The Indian model suffers from
sections that feel introductory, as though the legislature tried it out first
and only then decided to adopt the comprehensive form. However, the legislature
in India has taken a cautious approach, and as a result, the notion of plea
bargaining has failed miserably in the Indian judicial system. To figure out
what's wrong with the Indian model and why it hasn't been able to accomplish
its original aims, researchers have compared it to the American model of plea
bargaining.
The Indian model is conceptually
distinct from the American one. The use of plea bargaining in Indian courts is
quite limited, and the notion has not yet gained widespread public acceptance.
Here, we'll list some of the most fundamental differences between the two
designs:
I. In India, a plea bargain is possible
for offences that carry a maximum sentence of seven years in jail. Under the
American system, a person can enter a not-guilty plea for any offence,
including murder.
II.Second, in India, this defence cannot
be used if the defendant is a woman or a minor less than 14 years old. No such
conditions are attached to plea bargaining in the American system.
III.In addition, the Indian model has the
restrictions that juveniles, habitual criminals, and those responsible for
socioeconomic offences are not eligible to use the plea. In contrast to the
Indian model, which does not provide space for such riders, the American model
is able to accommodate any and all possible scenarios.
IV.In contrast to the American system,
in which the prosecution and the accused jointly submit the application once
plea discussions have concluded, the Indian system instructs the accused to do
so.
V.In contrast to the American model,
where victims have no say over the conditions of plea bargains, it is implied
in the provisions of the Indian model that the victim has a power to veto the
plea bargain.[19]
The American model of plea bargaining
appears to be more comprehensive when being compared to the European one. Yet,
the Indian model is not open to everyone; it is designed for a certain
population. “Although plea bargaining in India was first implemented to reduce
the backlog of pending cases, it has not been successful in doing so after a
decade of use. The preceding contrast with the American model may hold the key
to understanding the motivations behind this. The inefficiency of the phenomena
is shown in the fact that there are so few cases accessible for plea bargaining
in a country where three crores of cases are outstanding. Even if there are
flaws in the American model of plea bargaining, it is clearly a workable idea
given that around 90% of cases in America are resolved through plea
bargaining.” The American style of plea bargaining has been more effective than
the Indian one at reducing the burden on the judicial system. India is only
getting started with plea bargaining, therefore the system there requires a lot
of work to reduce case backlogs.
6. PLEA BARGAINING
MECHANISM: A WAY FORWARD
The Indi.an system of plea bargaining is a topic of debate. One school
of thought holds that the Indian criminal justice system would benefit from
plea bargaining because it would result in the quicker trial of criminal cases
and a smaller backlog of crimin.al cases in the
Indian Courts. The opposing school of thought argues that plea bargaining would
have a disproportionately negative effect on the poor, who are often unjustly
held by the police and falsely accused of committing crimes.
“As of 2015, government data revealed
that plea bargaining was rarely used in India. Plea bargains occurred in just
4,816 of the 10,502,256 cases for trial under the general criminal legislation
in 2015.
This dropped to 0.043 percent in
2016, with 4,887 reported cases out of a total of 11,107,472. There was an
uptick of 0.27% in 2017, with 31,857 out of 11,524,490 cases settling through
plea bargaining. Nevertheless, this was not a lasting trend, since there was a
net decline in the number of cases in 2018, with just 20,062 out of 12,106,309
(or 0.16%) being resolved through plea bargaining. It's disappointing that this
number hasn't even surpassed 1% after 15 years.
There was still an increase in the
number of pending cases, but it was slower than previously. Similarly, there
has been an uptick in the number of pre-trial detainees since 2006. As a
result, neither of the two goals that plea bargaining was supposed to
accomplish was met in India.”[20]
It’s in their best interest to use
the plea negotiating system to cut their sentences and save years of court
battles. In addition, some may view the plea-bargaining system as a means by
which some criminal acts are made acceptable. An offender might utilize the
idea to get out of paying for their crime by negotiating with the prosecution
to spend as little time in jail as possible and pay as little as possible in
restitution to the victim (if required). A defendant can employ plea bargaining
as many times as they choose. This plea-bargaining system provides an
opportunity for repeat criminals to legitimize their behaviour. Thus, it's
important to set limits on how often an accused person can employ plea
bargaining as a defence strategy. The Court has an obligation to prevent repeat
criminals from abusing the plea-bargaining system, as doing so would undermine
the rule of law.
To promote a timely criminal justice
system in India, the concept of plea bargaining aims to minimize the back.log of criminal cases. However, if an accused is charged with
a crime for which the maximum sentence is more than seven years, he or she will
not be able to employ the plea-bargaining process. Offenders who target women
and children under the age of 14 are not eligible for plea negotiation, and
neither are those committing socio-economic crimes. Those accused with multiple
crimes will not be able to benefit from plea bargaining because of the
exclusion of certain offences. As such, “it
is important to consider the suggestion made in the 142nd Law Commission
Report, which stated that the scheme of plea bargaining may be introduced
initially only for those offences in which the maximum punishment is of seven
years in imprisonment, and that once the viability and success of the scheme
are seen, the purview of the scheme of plea bargaining could be widened to
include other crimes as well. As the effectiveness of the plea-bargaining
scheme has been seen up to this point, the legislature should seriously
consider expanding the scheme to include offences with a sentence of more than
seven years in order to realize the true goal of introducing the scheme into
Indian jurisprudence.”
The fact that there is no set
deadline for the whole plea negotiating process also works against the scheme's
original intent. Once the accused submits a plea bargain application, there is
no stipulated time limit within which the prosecution and the accused must
reach an agreement. There is also no time limit within which the Court must report
on whether or not the accused and the prosecutor or the victim were able to
reach a mutually acceptable resolution for expedited case disposition. The goal
of a swift criminal justice system is rendered moot under these circumstances
since the Court has the authority to take its own time in preparing the report.
An innocent individual can decide
that it is in his best interest to plea bargain for guilt in a case that could
drag on in court for years in a nation like India. An innocent person may choose
to do this if he knows that he will be found guilty after a lengthy trial that
would drain his finances. Plea bargaining thus potentially violates the tenet
of the law that no innocent should ever be punished. The 142nd Law Commission
Report identified the promotion of corrupt behaviour as one of the key
disadvantages of plea bargaining. On the surface, it would appear that India's
plea-bargaining process is designed to prevent any sort of corruption.
Yet, the content of the discussion
between the accused and the prosecution or the victim following the accused's
plea negotiating motion to the Court is seldom if ever reported.
Even if the accused has made the plea
bargain application on his or her own will, the opposite side may still try to
financially bargain with him or her to extend the length of the case. Yet, the
accused may also bribe the public prosecutor into negotiating terms that are
more favourable to the accused than to the victim or the State. To get around
this disadvantage of plea bargaining, the judge should preside over the initial
meeting between the defendant and the prosecutor or victim. Of course, this
means the judge hearing the case or accepting the plea bargain must be
impartial to both the accused and the prosecution.
In 2006, “the Central Government
established a list of socioeconomic offences for which the plea-bargaining plan
is unavailable. The Dowry Prohibition Act from 1961, the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act from 2005, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention from Atrocities) Act from 1991, and the Infant Milk Substitutes,
Feeding Bottles, and Infants Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply, and
Distribution) Act from 1992 are all examples of such social and economic
offences.” It's important to keep in mind that not all lawsuits filed under
these laws are the same. It's possible that some of the crimes are so severe
that they damage the entire community, while others are so little that they
hardly phased out the victim. It would be more practical to decide on instances
involving violations of the aforementioned Acts after carefully weighing the
circumstances and consequences of the offence, rather than making the
plea-bargaining process unavailable for such violations. The system of plea
bargaining should be available to the accused even if the crime is minor in
character or is classified as a socioeconomic crime.
7. CONCLUSION AND
SUGGESTIONS
To alleviate the backlog of criminal
cases, “India implemented a plea-bargaining mechanism. The Indian criminal
justice system was the target of the reforms. The concept of legalizing plea
bargaining in India was formerly decided by the courts and labelled a
repressible activity. The Law Commission Reports, however, advocated for the
implementation of plea bargaining in India to speed up the country's painfully
sluggish criminal justice system. Since the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of
2005 established a plea-bargaining scheme in Chapter XXI-A, Sections 265-A to
265-L, the opinion of the Courts regarding plea bargaining has shifted
dramatically. With more criminals opting to negotiate their sentences through
plea bargaining with the prosecution and victim, the criminal justice system in
India has improved in terms of efficiency. However, the current plea-bargaining
procedure in India has a few drawbacks, including that it can encourage a lot
of corruption in the justice system and that the accused cannot use the scheme
of plea bargaining if they have been charged with a crime with a maximum
sentence of more than seven years or a crime with a significant impact on
society's economy.”
When it comes to criminal
proceedings, time is of the essence, thus the Court and the parties involved in
the case have no deadline within which they must finish the plea negotiating
procedure. Although the plea-bargaining mechanism has already been demonstrated
to be an effective and long-lasting tool of justice, there is an urgent need to
address the flaws in the current system in order to make it fairer and more
effective. It would be a significant step forward in improving India's criminal
justice system if the problems plaguing the current plea-bargaining method
could be discovered and resolved.
Examining the practice of plea
bargaining in India in detail reveals both the strengths and weaknesses of the
aforementioned methodology. Unlike in the United States, where the function of
the court is only passive, under the Indian model, the role of the judiciary is
active, which has several benefits. In opposed to the United States, where
victims have little say over the conditions of plea bargains, in the Indian
model of plea bargaining, victims have the right to veto the bargain. The
American form of plea bargaining, the world's pioneer and most successful, has
many advantages, while the Indian approach has several disadvantages. As a
result of its flaws, the Indian model has failed to produce the anticipated
outcome. With any luck, this piece may provide some food for thought for
India's legal elite, who can then use it to work towards improving plea
bargains and reducing the country's astronomical backlog of pending cases.
The argument is not that the American
model should be adopted wholesale, but rather that the Indian model should be
supplemented with the required elements to make it successful enough to solve
the current clogging of the Courts' data. Even though the idea has been around
for a decade in India, it hasn't accomplished anything particularly remarkable
thus far. Fewer cases involving plea bargaining and judicial sentiment towards
the practice both point to a bleak outlook for the process. Bringing plea
bargaining up to par with the West requires two changes. Legal reforms are
first and foremost necessary to bring India up to speed with other nations that
have found success in this area.
The court and the juristic class have
a responsibility to support the legislation concerning plea bargaining, as
without their support, this type of law is unlikely to obtain widespread
acceptance as a common remedy. It is important to take plea bargaining law
seriously and put it into practice often. With proper consideration, plea
bargaining may be a viable solution to the terrible backlog of cases in the
judicial system.
[1] Gill Simran, “Concept of Plea
Bargaining under Criminal Procedure Code”, Legal Service India, April 2022,
available at https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3857-concept-of-plea-bargaining-under-criminal-procedure-code.html (last accessed at 21st May 2023 at
06:18 pm)
[3] AIR 1980 SC 854.
[4] 1980 Cri LJ. 553.
[5] Neeraj Arora, Plea Bargaining- A New Development in the Criminal Justice System,
Posted on December 18, 2010, available at
https://www.legallyindia.com/views/entry/plea-bargaining-a-new-development-in-the-criminal-justice-system-html (last visited on 25th February
2023)
[6] The Criminal Law (Amendment), 2006
(Act 2 of 2006), Sec 265-A.
[7] The Criminal Law (Amendment), 2006
(Act 2 of 2006), Sec 265-A.
[8] Notification of Ministry of Law
and Justice, No. S01042 (I), issued on July 11, 2006.
[9] The Criminal Law (Amendment), 2006
(Act 2 of 2006), Sec 265-L.
[10] The Criminal Law (Amendment), 2006
(Act 2 of 2006), Sec 265-B.
[11] The Criminal Law (Amendment), 2006
(Act 2 of 2006), Sec 265-C.
[12] The Criminal Law (Amendment), 2006
(Act 2 of 2006), Sec 265-D.
[13] The Criminal Law (Amendment), 2006
(Act 2 of 2006), Sec 265-E.
[14] The Criminal Law (Amendment), 2006
(Act 2 of 2006), Sec 265-I.
[15] The Criminal Law (Amendment), 2006
(Act 2 of 2006), Sec 265-G.
[16] The Criminal Law (Amendment), 2006
(Act 2 of 2006), Sec 265-A.
[17] State of Gujarat v. Natwar Harchanji Thakor, (2005) 1 GLR 709.
[18] Crl. MA No. 9856/1007 & Bail
Appl. 1298/2007.
[19] J. E. Ross, “The entrenched position
of Plea Bargaining in Unit.ed States legal practice”, 54 A.M. J COMP. L.717, 717 (2006).
[20] Vishwanath, A. (2016) Why Hasn’t Plea Bargaining Taken off in
India? MINT. available at https://www.livemint.com/Politics/otm5XvV7DTZJ9KaKScbJ4H/Why-hasnt-plea-bargaining-taken-off-in-India.html (last visited on 23 February
2023).
Article Information
“AN ANALYSIS OF PLEA-BARGAINING MECHANISM”: A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN USA AND INDIA
Authors: DEVINDER SINGH ANAND, JYOTI MANGAL
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/07/08
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.