Swipe to navigate through the chapters of this book
‘Nolo Contendere’ i.e., ‘do not wish to contend’ forms the basis of the concept of Plea Bargaining wherein the person accused acknowledges that the charges imposed against him are right and he will not contest the same in the court of law. The said concept originated in USA and because of its immense success therein, incorporation of the same in the Indian legal system was persistently recommended by the Law Commission via its 142nd, 154th, and 177th reports. The culmination of the efforts of the Law Commission was the insertion of a new chapter XXIA dealing with the concept of Plea Bargaining by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005. This paper briefly traces the origin of the concept of the Plea bargaining and thereby incorporation of the same in the Indian legal system. Thereafter, the paper critically analyses the provisions of Cr.P.C dealing with the concept highlighting that the amendment falls short of the achieving the objective plea bargaining, i.e., to reduce the pendency in criminal cases which results into deferment of justice. Further on, the paper goes on to analyse the role of Indian judiciary in application and implementation of the concept and also throws light on how the Indian Judiciary has implemented the concept of plea bargaining. The present work also does a comparative analysis of with law prevailing in the area in USA and highlights various psychological influences that affect the plea-bargaining process. The paper further analyse the concept with the USA. The paper concludes by giving suggestions for strengthening the system of plea bargaining as it an inevitable component of our adversarial form of criminal justice system.
Please log in to get access to your license.
Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:
H. Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1980 SCC (Crime) 40 (India).
Brady v. United States, 397 US 742 (1970).
Id. at 3.
State ex Rel. Clark v. Adams, 363 US 807 (1960).
Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 US 357 (1978).
Madanlal Ramachander Daga v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 1267 (India).
Murlidhar Meghraj Loya vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 1929 (India).
Ganeshmal Jasraj v. Government of Gujarat and another, AIR 1980 SC 264 (India).
Kasambhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 854 (India).
Kachhia Patel Shantilal Koderlal v. State of Gujarat and Anr,  3 SCC 120 (India).
Thippaswamy v. State of Karnataka,  1 SCC 194 (India).
State of Gujarat v. Natwar Harchandji Thakor, (2005) 1 GLR 709 (India).
Pradeep Gupta v. State, Bail Application No. 1298/2007 (India).
go back to reference Gupta, A. (no date) Law finder live, Law Finder!! Available at: https://www.lawfinderlive.com/Articles-1/Article9.htm?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 (Accessed: December 2, 2022). Gupta, A. (no date) Law finder live, Law Finder!! Available at: https://www.lawfinderlive.com/Articles-1/Article9.htm?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 (Accessed: December 2, 2022).
go back to reference Goode, E. Stronger hand for judges in the ‘bazaar’ of plea deals (published 2012), The New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/stronger-hand-for-judges-after-rulings-on-plea-deals.html (Accessed: December 1, 2022). Goode, E. Stronger hand for judges in the ‘bazaar’ of plea deals (published 2012), The New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/stronger-hand-for-judges-after-rulings-on-plea-deals.html (Accessed: December 1, 2022).
- Bargained Justice: Legal Psychological Analysis of Plea-Bargaining in India and USA
- Copyright Year
- Springer Nature Singapore