R K SAKSENA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicants and learned APP for the State. The applicants are challenging the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pimpri, Pune, in Criminal Case No.3695/95 whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to convict the accused-applicants herein for the offence punishable under Sections 33-EEC(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and sentenced them to under simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000.00 each and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. This order was confirmed by the Sessions Court. The applicants are challenging the aforesaid order.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants that the Public Prosecutor has assured the applicants that if they pleaded guilty to the offence, they would be let off with simple sentence. He submitted that practice of plea bargaining has been deprecated by Supreme Court in number of judgments. He submitted that the trial Court, therefore, ought to have decided the case on its own merits. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh V/s. Chandrika reported in JT 1999 (8) SC page 481.

(3.) I have heard both the learned Counsel at length. From the perusal of the order passed by the magistrate, it can be seen that the learned Magistrate was pleased to consider the plea made by the learned counsel for the accused and on the basis of the said plea, had awarded sentence of six months and had imposed fine of Rs.2000.00. The Supreme Court in the case of Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1976) 3 SCC 684 in para 13 has disapproved the practice of plea bargaining or plea negotiation and compromise in criminal cases. In para 13 of the said Judgment, Supreme Court has observed as under:-