Transforming Justice Delivery

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (BNSS) introduces significant reforms aimed at enhancing the efficiency and accessibility of the Indian criminal justice system. Two pivotal mechanisms introduced under this legislative framework are summary trials and plea bargaining. The provisions related to summary trials and plea bargaining reflect a paradigm shift towards speedy justice and reducing the burden on courts while ensuring procedural fairness and accountability. Summary trials empower magistrates to swiftly adjudicate minor offences, thereby conserving judicial resources and offering quick resolutions for less serious cases. Plea bargaining, on the other hand, emphasises voluntary negotiation between the accused and the prosecution to reach a mutually satisfactory disposition, promoting restorative justice principles and reducing litigation time. This article delves into the detailed framework, procedural safeguards, and practical implications of these provisions under the BNSS, analysing their potential to reshape India’s criminal justice landscape.

Who is empowered to try offences summarily?

The following are empowered to try offences summarily:

• Any Chief Judicial Magistrate;
• Magistrate of the first class.

Which offences can be tried summarily by a Chief Judicial Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class?

The following offences can be tried summarily:

• Theft where the value of stolen property does not exceed ₹20,000.
• Receiving or retaining stolen property where the value does not exceed ₹20,000.
• Assisting in the concealment or disposal of stolen property where the value does not exceed ₹20,000
• Insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace and criminal intimidation.
• Abetment of the above offences.
• Attempt to commit the above offences.
• Offences under the Cattle-trespass Act, 1871.

Can a Magistrate try offences not punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment exceeding three years summarily?

Yes, a Magistrate may try such offences summarily after giving the accused a reasonable opportunity to be heard and recording reasons in writing. However, no appeal lies against this decision.

What should a Magistrate do if they find a case unsuitable for summary trial?

The Magistrate shall recall any witnesses examined and proceed to rehear the case as per the regular procedure.

Who can be authorised to try summary cases besides Chief Judicial Magistrates and Magistrates of the first class?

The High Court may confer this power on Magistrates of the second class to try offences punishable only with fine or imprisonment not exceeding six months, and any abetment or attempt to commit such offences.

What is the maximum sentence that can be imposed in summary trials?

No sentence of imprisonment exceeding three months shall be passed in summary trials.

What details must be recorded by the Magistrate in summary trials?

The following details must be recorded:

• Serial number of the case.
• Date of commission of the offence.
• Date of report or complaint.
• Name of the complainant (if any).
• Name, parentage, and residence of the accused.
• Offence complained of and proved, along with the value of property, if applicable.
• Plea and examination of the accused.
• Finding.
• Sentence or final order.
• Date of termination of proceedings.

What must a Magistrate record in a summary trial when the accused does not plead guilty?

The Magistrate must record the substance of the evidence and a brief judgment stating the reasons for the finding.

In what language should records and judgments in summary trials be written?

They should be written in the language of the Court. The High Court may authorise preparation of these by an officer, signed by the Magistrate.

When does the chapter on plea bargaining apply?

It applies when:

• A police report alleges an offence punishable with imprisonment not exceeding seven years.
• A Magistrate takes cognisance of such an offence on complaint and issues process.
• The chapter does not apply to offences affecting socio-economic conditions or committed against women or children.

What is the procedure for plea bargaining?

A plea bargaining application must be filed within 30 days of framing charges, detailing the case and containing an affidavit affirming voluntariness. The Court examines the accused in-camera to ensure voluntariness and proceeds to work out a mutually satisfactory disposition if satisfied.

What happens if a mutually satisfactory disposition is reached?

The Court prepares a report signed by all participants. If no agreement is reached, the Court proceeds with the trial as per regular procedure.

How does the Court dispose of a case after plea bargaining?

The Court may:

• Award compensation to the victim.
• Release the accused on probation.
• Impose reduced punishment based on first-time offender status.
• Sentence as per reduced terms outlined.

Are statements made during plea bargaining admissible for other purposes?

No, statements made during plea bargaining are not admissible for purposes other than the chapter on plea bargaining.

What is the finality of the judgment in cases involving plea bargaining?

The judgment is final, with no appeal allowed except through special leave petitions under Article 136 or writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Hence, summary trials, as outlined in the BNSS, allow for the expedited adjudication of minor offences. By empowering Chief Judicial Magistrates and Magistrates of the first class to conduct trials in a streamlined manner, the BNSS aims to eliminate procedural complexities that often prolong criminal cases. The scope of offences that can be tried summarily includes theft, criminal intimidation, and offences involving stolen property valued up to ₹20,000. These provisions ensure that less serious offences do not overwhelm the judicial machinery, allowing courts to focus on more grievous and complex matters.

The procedural safeguards built into the BNSS, such as requiring the Magistrate to assess the appropriateness of a summary trial and allowing a shift to regular trial procedures if necessary, demonstrate a commitment to fairness. Furthermore, the cap on sentencing to a maximum of three months for summary trials balances the need for swift justice with proportional punishment, ensuring that expedited proceedings do not compromise the rights of the accused. Nonetheless, successful implementation requires proper judicial training, clarity in defining applicable cases, and sufficient administrative resources to handle a potentially higher volume of summary trials. Without these, there is a risk that the expedited process may inadvertently lead to rushed judgments or inadequate consideration of the nuances of each case.

Plea bargaining, introduced under the BNSS, represents a shift towards a more restorative and pragmatic approach to criminal justice. By encouraging negotiations between the prosecution and the accused, this mechanism aims to resolve cases amicably and efficiently while reducing the backlog of pending trials. The voluntary nature of plea bargaining, coupled with safeguards like in-camera examination of the accused to prevent coercion, ensures that the process upholds the principles of fairness and autonomy.

The mutually satisfactory disposition model also incorporates a victim-centric approach, enabling compensation and restorative measures. This is a significant departure from the traditional punitive model, fostering reconciliation and allowing victims to play an active role in the resolution process. However, the success of plea bargaining depends heavily on effective judicial oversight to prevent misuse, such as coerced agreements or disproportionate leniency.

Therefore, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has laid a strong foundation for a faster, fairer, and more efficient criminal justice system in India. Summary trials and plea bargaining are tools with immense potential to address systemic delays, reduce overcrowded court dockets, and foster a more restorative justice framework. However, the true measure of their success lies in effective implementation, judicial vigilance, and consistent oversight to prevent potential pitfalls.

By striking a balance between expediency and justice, the BNSS holds the promise of transforming how minor and negotiable criminal cases are handled in India. As the legal community, judiciary, and society adapt to these changes, a collaborative effort will be essential in realizing the full benefits of these reforms. Ultimately, this comprehensive approach can pave the way for a more responsive, efficient, and equitable justice delivery system, aligning with India’s evolving socio-legal landscape and ensuring justice for all.

 Muneeb Rashid Malik is an Advocate practicing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. He is the Legal Advisor to Kashmir Uzma. He tweets @muneebmalikrash.