Case Note & Summary
The applicants, R.K. Saksena and others, were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pimpri, Pune, in Criminal Case No. 3695/95 for an offence punishable under Section 33-EEC(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. They were sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 2000 each, with a default sentence of three months. The conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Court. The applicants challenged the order before the Bombay High Court. The main contention of the applicants was that the Public Prosecutor had assured them that if they pleaded guilty, they would be let off with a simple sentence. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that the practice of plea bargaining has been deprecated by the Supreme Court in several judgments, including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandrika, JT 1999 (8) SC 481. Therefore, the trial court ought to have decided the case on its merits. The learned APP for the State submitted that having pleaded guilty, the applicants could not challenge the sentence, and that plea bargaining is foreign to the Indian criminal system. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the practice of plea bargaining is illegal and has been deprecated by the Supreme Court. The conviction based on such a practice cannot be sustained. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, on its own merits, without being influenced by the plea of guilty. The applicants were directed to appear before the trial court on a specified date.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Plea Bargaining - Conviction based on plea bargaining - Practice deprecated by Supreme Court - The applicants pleaded guilty on assurance of lenient sentence by Public Prosecutor - The trial court convicted them under Section 33-EEC(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - The High Court held that plea bargaining is illegal and the conviction cannot be sustained - The matter was remanded for fresh trial on merits (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a conviction and sentence based on plea bargaining is sustainable in law
Final Decision
The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, on its own merits, without being influenced by the plea of guilty. The applicants are directed to appear before the trial court on 20th February, 2006.
Law Points
- Plea bargaining is illegal and foreign to Indian criminal jurisprudence
- Conviction based on plea bargaining is liable to be set aside
- Court must decide cases on merits
