Skip to main content

Plea Bargaining

Image

There is a need to do justice to the victims of a crime and achieve a fair balance by awarding a just sentence to the convicts, treating them in a manner that tends to facilitate their rehabilitation. Chapter 23 of the BNSS addresses the concept of plea bargaining, which aims to facilitate and enable the trial judge to arrive at a mutually satisfactory disposition of a criminal case by actively engaging the victim of a crime. It is the duty of a trial judge to utilize this tool given by the Parliament to ensure a fair and just termination of a criminal case. 


Application (S289)

Provisions relating to plea bargaining apply to the accused against whom:

1 The police report (S193 r/w S2(t)) has been filed alleging the commission of an offence 

2 The magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence on the complaint and after examining the complainant and witnesses (S223), issued process (S227)  

The provisions relating to plea bargaining shall not apply to the following cases:

1 Offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or a term exceeding 7 years

2 Offences affecting the socioeconomic condition of the country

3 Offences committed against a woman/child

4 Juvenile/child as defined in S2 of the JJ Act (S300)


Application for Plea Bargaining (S290(1))

Application for plea bargaining can be filed by the eligible accused person (as mentioned above) within 30 days from the date of framing of the charge in the trial court. 


Format for the Application (S290(2))

1 It must contain a brief description of the case/offence 

2 It must be accompanied by an affidavit sworn by the accused stating:

A. He has voluntarily preferred the application after understanding the nature and extent of the punishment provided for the offence and

B. He has not previously been convicted in which he was charged with the same offence  

The statements or facts stated in the application shall not be used for any other purpose except for the purpose of plea bargaining (S299)

 

Procedure(S290(3-4))

On receiving the application, the court shall issue notice to the PP or the Complainant and the accused and when the PP/Complainant and the accused appear, the court shall examine the accused in camera in the absence of the other party to satisfy itself that the application is filed voluntarily.

1 if the application is filed voluntarily:

The court shall provide 60 days (max.) to the PP/Complainant and the accused to work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case which may include compensation and other expenses during the case to the victim by the accused 

2 If the application is filed involuntarily or he is a previous convict

The court shall proceed further according to the provisions of the BNSS from the stage the application was filed


Guidelines for Mutually Satisfactory Disposition (S291)

In working out an MSD, the court shall issue notice to the PP, IO, accused, and victim of the case (if the case is instituted on a PR) and to the accused and victim (if the case is instituted otherwise on PR) to participate in the meeting. The court shall ensure the completion of the process by the voluntary participation of all the parties throughout such process and the accused (in all cases) and victim (if the case is instituted otherwise on PR) shall be allowed to participate with his advocate.

If an MSD has been worked out, the court shall prepare a report which shall be signed by the PO and all the participants and if no MSD has been worked out, the court shall proceed further according to the provisions of the BNSS from the stage the application was filed. (S292)


Disposal of Case (S293)

If an MSD has been worked out, the court shall dispose of the case in the following manner:

1 compensation shall be awarded to the victim according to the MSD and the parties shall be heard on the quantum of the sentence or release of the accused on probation/admonition    

2 if laws relating to probation/admonition are attracted, the court may release the accused on probation/admonition or provide the benefit of such law.

3 if minimum punishment is provided for the offence, the court may impose half of such minimum punishment. If the accused is 1st time offender and not a previous convict (any offence), it may impose one-fourth of such minimum punishment.

4 if the offence is not covered by either of the cases mentioned above, the court may impose one-fourth of the maximum punishment and if the accused is 1st time offender and not a previous convict (any offence), it may impose one-sixth of such maximum punishment

  

Judgment (Ss294&295)

The court shall deliver its judgment in open court and the PO shall sign it. It shall be final and no appeal shall lie against such judgment. However, an SLP U/A 136 and writ petition U/A 226/227 of the Constitution shall be maintainable against such judgment.


Benefit of S468 (S297)

The period of detention already undergone by the accused shall be set off against the sentence imposed upon him under the provisions mentioned above. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

All Cases of Sexual Intercourse Based on a False Promise of Marriage NOT Covered under Section 69 of the BNS

Recently, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Yash Dayal, a Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) player, under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for engaging in sexual intercourse on the false pretext of marriage. The complainant alleged that, relying on Yash Dayal’s false promise of marriage, she consented to sexual intercourse. Notably, the FIR was not registered under Section 64 (rape) of the BNS. This raises the question: Are all cases of sexual intercourse based on a false promise of marriage (vitiated consent) now exclusively covered under Section 69 of the BNS? Prior to the enactment of the BNS, sexual intercourse induced by a false promise of marriage was punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and classified as rape. This classification stemmed from Section 375 of the IPC, which defines rape as, inter alia, sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent, and Section 90, which states that consent given under a misconceptio...
Post a Comment
Read more

Requirements for Criminal Liability under Sections 406 and 420 IPC

The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Jain v. The State of Gujarat and Another (2025 INSC 614), delivered on May 1, 2025, is a significant exposition on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), to quash a First Information Report (FIR) in cases where allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are deemed to be a misuse of criminal process for civil disputes. The judgment meticulously analyzes the alleged offenses' legal ingredients, the commercial transaction's factual matrix, and the documentary evidence, ultimately concluding that the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process. Factual Background The case arises from a commercial transaction between the appellant, Ashok Kumar Jain, a director of Maayu Import and Export Ltd., a Sri Lankan company, and the second respondent, a proprietor of Ansh Prints, a textile business in Surat, Gujara...
Post a Comment
Read more

Advocates Vs. CAs/CSs/CMAs

This article deals with the exclusive right to practise law and tribunal representation and the principles relating to a Harmonious Construction of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Companies Act, 2013 Introduction  The ongoing controversy concerning the right of non-advocate professionals, namely Chartered Accountants(CAs), Company Secretaries(CSs), and Cost and Management Accountants(CMAs), to appear and argue matters before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) raises fundamental questions touching the statutory monopoly over the practice of law in India. This post examines the competing statutory claims under the Advocates Act, 1961 and Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013, applies the doctrine of harmonious construction, and concludes that Section 432 does not, and constitutionally cannot, confer any independent or parallel right to practise law upon non-advocates before tribunals. Background of the Dispute Recently, t...
Post a Comment
Read more