'Plea bargaining: Solution to case pendency' says Mumbai court while acquitting 9 booked for obstructing public servant's work

Mumbai: Citing high pendency of cases in Indian courts, a city sessions court has said it ‘welcomes and encourages’ plea bargaining. The case involved nine accused – all residents of a chawl in Mazgaon – who sought plea bargaining after being booked for obstructing a public servant against demolition of their homes on June 6, 2016. The accused also volunteered to pay compensation of Rs90,000 to the BMC engineer at the receiving end.

The court released them on a bond instead of sentencing them to a jail term. It said this would help achieve the objective of the legislation behind introducing plea bargaining in the Indian criminal justice system.

The civic body’s engineer, in turn, decided that he would remit the amount to the BMC. Additional Sessions Judge SD Tawshikar in the order appreciated his gesture.

On the day of demolition in 2016, the informant Netaji Jathre, assistant engineer (maintenance, E-Ward), had visited Tadwadi, BIT Chawl in Mazgaon, as per the Supreme Court’s order. The residents had not vacated it despite the notice and had started abusing, assaulting Jathre and his colleagues. They were booked under Indian Penal Code sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharging duty) among other offences.

Accused filed an application for plea bargaining at beginning of trail

The court noted in its order that when the trial was to begin, the accused made an application for plea bargaining. Thereafter, the accused and the prosecution negotiated on the compensation under a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure and ultimately filed a report of ‘mutually satisfactory disposition’. It was agreed that each of the accused would pay an amount of Rs10,000 to the informant. Judge Tawshikar said in the order that the court is satisfied with the report and would proceed to hear the accused on the point of sentence.

Their advocate told the court that the accused had tried to save their residence as they had no alternative accommodation at the relevant time. He said that they had no intention to obstruct the informant or disobey the court order. The court was told that they had vacated the premises and would not commit such an offence again.

The advocate sought that they not be sentenced, but extended the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act instead as per which, instead of a jail term, first-time or young offenders are released on a bond of good behaviour.