Kasambhai Abdul Rehman Bhai Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat ||Case Summary|| (1980) 3 SCC 120 || Plea Barganing

Plea Barganing

FACTS

Kasambhai Abdul Rehman Bhai Sheikh was charged with food adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. During the trial, the prosecution, the accused, and the magistrate engaged in a plea bargaining arrangement. Kasambhai pleaded guilty in exchange for a lenient sentence. The trial court convicted him based on this plea, but the Gujarat High Court enhanced the sentence on appeal, prompting Kasambhai to appeal to the Supreme Court. He argued that the conviction based on plea bargaining was invalid.

ISSUES

1. Is the practice of plea bargaining in criminal cases constitutional and permissible under Indian law?

2. Can a conviction based on a guilty plea resulting from plea bargaining be sustained?

RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to a fair trial.

2. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Governs the offense of food adulteration, under which Kasambhai was charged.

JUDGEMENTS

The Supreme Court, in a decision authored by Justice P.N. Bhagwati, set aside the conviction. The Court held that plea bargaining was unconstitutional, illegal, and against public policy in India at the time. It ruled that a conviction based on a guilty plea induced by plea bargaining—where the accused was allured with the promise of a lighter sentence—violated Article 21’s guarantee of a fair trial. The Court emphasized that such a practice could encourage corruption, collusion, and undermine the integrity of the judicial process.

SIGNIFICANCE

1. Established an early judicial stance against plea bargaining in India, declaring it unconstitutional and a violation of fair trial rights under Article 21.Highlighted concerns about potential misuse of plea bargaining, such as encouraging corruption or coercion of the accused.

2. Influenced later debates on plea bargaining, eventually leading to its formal introduction in India through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005, which added Chapter XXI-A to the CrPC, though with safeguards to address the Court’s concerns.

3. Underscored the importance of ensuring that guilty pleas are voluntary and not induced by external promises, setting a precedent for fair trial protections.

Vinita Pathak