SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
Sonadhar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 529 of 2021
Decided On : 17-08-2022
Fact of the Case:
The court directed Advisory Boards of all states to meet within two weeks and take remedial action based on reports received. It also discussed the possibility of an alternate route for cases with a maximum sentence of 7 years or less.Finding of the Court:
The court emphasized the need for flexibility in dealing with unique or more heinous cases and directed states to explore similar routes themselves.Issues:
Compliance with premature release directions, exploring alternate routes for certain cases, willingness to accept infraction and no contest by life convicts eligible for remission.Ratio Decidendi:
The court highlighted the importance of taking remedial action based on reports received and emphasized flexibility in dealing with unique or more heinous cases.Final Decision:
The matter was listed for further proceedings on 14th September, 2022.ORDER
COMPLIANCE OF PRE-MATURE RELEASE DIRECTIONS
1. Learned Amicus Curiae states that some of the inputs in reports have not been adequate and interaction is taking place with the State counsels to ensure that the information sought for by learned Amicus Curiae is made available to give a final report to this Court.
2. We are not inclined to give a long period of time and if the submission of the learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu is to be appreciated, Advisory Board is stated not to have made it. It thus appear to us that without our directions things do not move, which is not a happy state of affairs. We direct the Advisory Boards for all the States to meet within two weeks.
3. Learned Amicus Curiae also points out that in the reports of certain States problems have been identified and intimated. All States must take remedial action within the same period i.e. two weeks.
JAIL PETITIONS
4. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned Amicus curiae suggests that this also be taken up on 14th September, 2022.
POSSIBLE ALTERNATE ROUTE (Order dated 09.2.20221
5. We had dealt with possibility of an alternate route in cases where the maximum sentence is 7 years or less and the persons have either served out half the sentence or pending trial have already gone through half the sentence. In this behalf, Mr. Devansh A. Mohta, learned Amicus curiae has drawn our attention to the endeavor to take up the Chhattisgarh State for purposes of pilot project. He has filed an additional note today i.e. 17.8.2022 and a request has been made to the Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Raipur for taking necessary steps under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in respect of these 31 cases. The Chhattisgarh State Legal Services Authority (CSLSA) has also proposed a "Special Campaign" where efforts would be made to secure release of prisoners by adopting to compromise, plea-bargain or set off. Further they are proposing to request the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of Chhattisgarh to issue circular to depute 2 to 3 Magistrates in every district/taluka for holding Court sitting in Jail Premises on every working Saturdays and dispose of cases in which the accused are willing to confess their guilt.
6. Learned Amicus curiae submits that by the next date i.e. 14th September, 2022 we may have a better appreciation of the efforts made by Chhattisgarh State. However, in our view, that does not preclude the other eight identified States i.e. Delhi, Gauhati, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal to explore the same route themselves and they will interact with the learned Amicus curiae for the steps to be taken in this behalf.
7. We may at this stage itself note that we have issued notice to all the States in a separate petition bearing SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021 where the larger issue would be examined keeping in mind the celebrations of 75 years of the Independence. We note here that plea bargaining in our statute only permits bargaining qua the sentence. The other aspect is plea-bargaining qua the nature of offence which is prevalent in many other countries and operated successfully. We are conscious this would require a legislative change but then on examination this Court can always make a suggestion for such a legislative change.
8. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. and Amicus Curiae in the matter has drawn our attention to the recognized practice in USA of 'Alford plea' and the 'nolo contendere plea'. In fact his submission is that such a course can be adopted even without any legislative action. The ascription of plea arose out of a judgment in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) by the U.S. Supreme Court, where an accused pleads guilty not because of an admission to the crime but on an admission that the prosecution has sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction, in order to secure a lesser sentence than may be awarded at trial. A 'nolo contendere plea' is a plea of no contest without admission
: Flexibility in dealing with unique or more heinous cases is essential in criminal proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.