Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 3101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
K. Saravanan - Appellant
Versus
State, Rep. by, Inspector of Police, CBI/BS&FC, Bangaluru & Anr. - Respondents
Crl.O.P. No. 14311 of 2023 & Crl. M.P. No. 8879 of 2023
Decided On : 07-08-2023
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to entertain plea bargaining under Chapter XXI A of the Code, emphasizing the legislative intention to mitigate the ordeal of the accused and reduce unwanted criminal trials.
Headnote:
Plea Bargain - Criminal Prosecution - Chapter XXI A of the Code - Section 265 A of Cr.P.C. - Section 265 (E) of the Code
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the criminal prosecution against them, contending that the loan availed by their company had been settled through One Time Settlement. Despite this, the court declined to quash the complaint or discharge the petitioner. The petitioner then filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the case was fit for entertaining a plea bargain, as the trial had not progressed despite specific directions to expedite the trial. The court directed the trial court to entertain an application for plea bargain in both cases and dispose of the case within 3 months.
Issues: The issues revolved around the refusal to quash the complaint or discharge the petitioner despite the settlement of the loan, and the lack of progress in the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of Chapter XXI A of the Code, specifically Section 265 A and Section 265 (E), which allow for plea bargaining and provide guidelines for its implementation. The court emphasized the need to reduce docket explosion and unwanted criminal trials, and highlighted the legislative intention to mitigate the ordeal of the accused through plea bargaining.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was disposed of with directions for the trial court to entertain an application for plea bargain and dispose of the case within 3 months.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records connected with C.C.No.39 of 2013 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore and quash the same.)
1.M/s.Asian Health & Nutri Foods Limited and its Directors were brought under scanner of CBI, pursuant to two complaints one by V.Pattabiraman, the Chief Vigilance Officer, State Bank of Mysore registered in RC.No.7E/2012 dated 05.07.2012 and another based on the complaint given by K.D.Menon, the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India in RC.2E/2013 dated 21.02.2013. These two cases were investigated and culminated in the final report.
2. The trial Court took the report on file and assigned C.C.Nos.39 and 54 of 2013 respectively. The petitioner herein arrayed as accused sought for quashing of criminal prosecution culminated in C.C.No.54 of 2013 before the High Court and also filed a discharge petition before the trial Court. After the quash petition came to be dismissed by this Court, the said discharge petition also got dismissed. Revision preferred against the dismissal of the discharge petition was not entertained by this Court. However, direction was given to the trial Court to expedite the trial on priority basis. This Court, while dismissing the quash petition, had directed by way of advice to conduct joint trial of both cases or simultaneous trial of both the cases in C.C.Nos.39 & 54 of 2013. Though the orders and direction were passed a long back, yet nothing has progressed in the trial Court.
3. The petitioner right throughout contended that the loan availed by M/s.Asian Health & Nutri Foods Limited been settled through One Time Settlement long back. Despite the settlement, the Court has declined to quash the complaint as well as refused to discharge him. When the petitioner was ready to undergo the trial, the trial Court did not make any headway. Therefore, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.39 of 2013 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore and quash the same.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to file an application for plea bargain. The trial Court may consider the application in accordance with law as laid down under Chapter XXI A of the Code, and the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid in suo motu W.P.(Crl.) No.4 of 2021 in the policy strategy for grant of bail.
. The learned counsel for the petitioner also circulated articles by Jurist regarding the provision of plea bargain in India and its effect. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner clearly indicates that the legislature after taking into consideration the recommendation of Malimath Committee had brought in a very effective amendment in the Code of Criminal Procedure with a laudable intention to mitigate the ordeal of the accused, who is ready to plea bargain of sentence as well as charges.
6. The object of introduction of this Chapter is to reduce the docket explosion and unwanted criminal trial. However, the experience so far gained indicates that this provision has not been understood in the manner in which it should be understood and applied. Chapter XXI A of the Code not been explored to the expectation of the legislature as well as the higher judiciary. This has prompted the Hon'ble Supreme Court to take up this matter and issued guidelines to the Courts below to exercise their power conferred under the Chapter XXI A. Though this chapter been introduced in the Code on 05.07.2006, statistics and data indicates that Court is not exercised power under this provision. The benefit in respect of the accused, in respect of victim and in respect of prosecution, when the stakeholders resort to plea bargain not been understood by the stakeholders. This Court is in full agreement with the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. After going
