Delhi High Court has observed that application for plea-bargaining is entertained at a stage anterior to framing of charge or serving of notice of accusation.
A bench of Justice Gauba was dealing with a case where plea of accused recorded twice and on second ocassion since he pleaded guilty, he was convicted by the Magistrate. The case is titled as GAURAV AGGARWAL vs STATE and was decided on 22.07.2019.
The petitioner herein was brought before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate to face trial as an accused on the basis of report (“charge sheet”) under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), presented on 03.07.2002, upon conclusion of investigation into first information report (FIR) No.560/2001 of Police Station Mukherjee Nagar on allegations of his involvement in certain acts of commission and omission constituting offences punishable under sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Metropolitan Magistrate having taken cognizance and issued process, secured the presence of the petitioner and eventually put him on trial on the basis of notice under Section 251 of Cr. PC, issued and served on 12.09.2002. The proceedings in the criminal case (No.789/2002) came to an end on 21.08.2013 with the order recorded by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) holding the petitioner guilty and convicting him for offences under sections 279 and 338 IPC on the basis of “plea of guilt”, this being followed by award of punishment in the form of fine of Rs.500/- on each count, the default sentence being simple imprisonment for five days.
The petitioner challenged the legality, correctness and propriety of the aforesaid order dated 21.08.2013 in the court of sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction by filing a petition (Criminal Revision No.24/2015). The Additional Sessions Judge, however, was not impressed. He concluded that there was no error committed by the trial court, the order passed leading to conviction and sentencing as above being reasoned and speaking, there being no grounds for any interference.
When the matter reched the High Court, it tried to ascertain if CrPC provides for any procedure where a Magistrate can record plea of accused twice and in that process, the High Court taken note of the concept of plea bargaining but found that even that is not applicable.
High Court observed "Undoubtedly, the chapter (no. XXI-A) on “plea bargaining” permits a person accused of an offence to move an application “for plea bargaining”. But then, Section 265 B (1) Cr.P.C. makes it clear that such application is to be made to the Court in which such offence is “pending for trial”, it being implicit in the said expression that the case in which such application for plea bargaining is to be entertained cannot be one which is “pending trial”. Thus, the application for plea-bargaining is entertained at a stage anterior to framing of charge or serving of notice of accusation".
Read the Order here:
Picture Source :
