Negotiating arguments is often justified because it is an essential process that involves court confessions. I argue in this paragraph that opposition agreements are not a confession – they generally don’t even involve the complex penetration of crime. It is basically the application of chapter which shall apply in respect of an accused against. In fact, prosecution takes longer than speaking. It is therefore very important to follow a system to speed up the process and free the courts from the huge backlog of cases. With such a large population, it is clear that at least thousands of crimes are committed across the country almost every day. In this article I will lead through the point how the concept is dealt and what are the statutory provisions and basic outcomes as drawback and why plea bargaining is not a confession.
Concept of Plea Bargaining
The famous saying “Justice delayed is justice denied”1 is of paramount importance when discussing the concept of negotiations and the concept of plea. The number of cases pending before the court is staggering but has also been normalized by the population. These shocking numbers are not surprising as people begin to see it as their fate. The concept of negotiations was not criminally anchored from the start. As the word itself suggests, it is an agreement between the accused and the prosecutor. Many countries have accepted this concept in their criminal justice systems (CJS). It is not for all kinds of crimes, e.g. No one is allowed to plead guilty after committing criminal offenses or for crimes that result in death or life imprisonment. Petitions are allowed in cases where the maximum sentence is 7 years in prison. The first case was in 2007, the case of Sakharam Bandekar2 and in this case the court rejected this, and CBI’s sentenced him to 3 years in prison. The argument does not apply to crimes against socio-economic status or to women or children under the age of 14.
Plea Bargaining in India
In order to reduce delays in the settlement of criminal matters, the report of the 154th Legal Commission first recommended the introduction of negotiations as an alternative method to deal with large arrears in criminal matters. This recommendation of the Legal Affairs Committee was finally supported in the Malimath Committee report. The NDA government has set up a committee chaired by Judge V. Salimath, a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Courts in Karnataka and Kerala, who has made proposals to deal with the growing number of criminal cases. In its report, the Malimath Committee recommended the introduction of an advocacy system in the Indian criminal justice system to speed up the resolution of criminal cases and reduce the burden on the courts. To strengthen his case, the Malimath Committee highlighted the success of the negotiating system in the United States.
Statutory provisions under Code of criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 265-A: It is possible to convict a defendant who is charged with a crime other than the crime that results in death or life imprisonment. Section 265-A (2) empowers the central government to report violations.
Section 265-B: The accused’s application must be made. A brief description of these cases will be included, including crime-related cases. It is accompanied by an affidavit by the accused. The court will then send a message to the investigator, the government lawyer and the victim of the case.3
Section 265-C: Describes the procedure that the court must follow for a mutually satisfactory solution to the case.4
Section 265-D: A meeting is held, then a report signed by the returnee and the meeting participants are prepared and the matter is resolved satisfactorily. However, if no conclusion is reached, the court will record the comments/ statement and proceed in accordance with the sub-section (1) of 265-B.
Section 265-E: After submitting a report, the court must hear the parties and decide on the amount of the sentence or release them on parole.
Section 265-F: It is connected with the decision in the context of a mutual dispute.
Section 265-G: No appeal can be brought against such a decision.5
Section 265-H: Powers of the court in negotiations/proceedings.
Section 265-I: (The Defendant’s Detention Period) indicates that Section 428 CrPC applies to the suspect’s detention period under this chapter.
Section 265-J: (Savings) speaks of the provisions of the Chapter that, regardless of all inconsistent elements contained in another provision of the Code, do not apply in these other provisions, including the meaning of a provision of Chapter XXI-A6
Section 265-K: (Accused Statement Used) indicates that statements or facts that the accused has made in an application under Section 265-B may not be used for any purpose other than that described in this chapter.
Section 265-L: The chapter does not apply to minors or children as defined in Section 2 (k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
The Supreme Court of Gujarat in the State of Gujarat vs Natwar Harchandji Thakore7 that the real purpose of the law is to ensure that disputes are resolved easily, cheaply and quickly, including the currently realistic framework for the hearing and suspension of criminal matters and the consideration of delays in legal and judicial settlement Justice administration. Fundamental reforms are inevitable. Nothing should be stable. We can therefore say that it is indeed a measure and a means and that it will add a new dimension to the area of judicial reform.
This article would be incomplete if it did not address the errors hidden throughout the concept. There is no doubt that negotiations are nothing more than the government’s inability to deal with all the issues before it. This indirectly reflects the ineffectiveness of traditional procedural laws.
Some of the main disadvantages of the concept of negotiation recognized in India are:
A) The police should be forced to participate in the briefing process.
B) The involvement of the court in the opposition proceedings ensures the impartiality of the court.
C) Involving the victim in the victim’s negotiation process leads to corruption.
D) If the accused’s application is denied, the accused will have immense difficulty proving innocent.
Why plea bargaining is not a confession
A confession of guilt is final because it is legal, not because it is a confession or even a particularly accurate or complete approval. Without initiating a strange procedure, a plea may include more elaborate procedures to assist and support the accused’s admission. A healthy policy, even when it comes to form, real substance. This would increase the cost of advocacy,8 but would allow for a more careful calibration of the consequences of penalties and guarantees. The idea that those who plead guilty should be excluded from allegations of vocation or postmodernism, including allegations of innocence, is profoundly worrying, particularly to the extent that this is an argument. We rely on a concept of confession.
This can be the best way to make this bargain in better way and punishment for such may be good for the person if he plead for such.
Kasambhai Abdulrehmanbhai Sheikh v. State of Gujarat9
In this case, the court said that the plea violated public order and polluted the pure front of the judiciary. The court questioned the moral of the argument. He also regrets the fact that the judge accepted the petition.
Murlidhar Mehraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra10
The Supreme Court has not promoted the concept of the petition. This is believed to be a formal incentive. The enormous power of the prosecutor’s office will lead to corruption and collusion by the judiciary. It is believed that public interest and public morality will be highlighted in the petition.
Negotiations do not solve the whole problem but reduce the severity of the judgment. The introduction of plea negotiations is an abbreviation that aims to reduce the number of people detained or detained without justice and to increase the number of convictions. It is undoubtedly a controversial concept because some welcomed it while others gave it up. The results will be clearly felt by the immeasurable number of poor people in the country’s prisons waiting for the trial. Given the benefits of negotiating pleas, the legal commission’s recommendations on negotiating pleas were clearly recognized as the order of the day and the stress of legalizing a crime of any kind. Will not be contacted. At this point it can be said with certainty that “the law is not a panacea/solution”11.
Who decides whether the accused is guilty or not?
The accused offender decides whether the accused is guilty or not, while his lawyers can advise him on his decision.
What is the difference between a confession of guilt and plea of nolo contendere?
In the negotiation of the objection, the accused accepts all necessary elements of the crime and informs the court that he is guilty of the crime. In Nolo Contendere, which is reflected in the request “no competition”. In such an argument, the defendant disagrees with the crime or does not plead guilty and claims to be innocent.
It may not solve all problems, but it can reduce the severity12. India is trying to remedy the situation, which despite its shortcomings can make a major contribution to speeding up the dispute and ensuring the efficiency and credibility of the Indian criminal justice system.
India has already recognized criminal rights in Article 20 of the Indian Constitution13. Given the changes over time, Indian courts have felt the need to appeal. When changes are made, people always turn away and take the time to accept the changes. Some should not be fired for losses. Changing the structure, structure and culture is therefore the order of the day. All of these measures will help ensure a quick trip.
3 Guide to criminal Pleading
6 Indian Journal A116
8 Legal Services India, Plea Bargaining, http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/plea_bar.htm
9 AIR 1980 SC 854
10 AIR 1976 SC 1929
12 Ins by Act 5 of 2009