英语论文网

ry rule needs to be laid down that even though a dispute is of criminal nature such dispute, after a reasonable time has elapsed should be referred to mediation on compulsory basis for early dispensation the view in this direction comes from the decision of the Gujarat division bench holding that the very object of law is to provide easy, cheap and expeditious justice by resolution of disputes, including the trial of criminal cases and considering the present realistic profile of the pendency and delay in disposal in the administration of law and justice, fundamental reforms are inevitable. [11]

Using various techniques of ADR to resolve criminal disputes is not plea bargaining or in any way similar to plea-bargaining because plea bargaining is a pre-trial negotiation between the accused and the prosecution during which the accused agrees to plead guilty in exchange for certain concessions by the prosecution and has the following limitations ;

The offence against the accused should carry a maximum sentence of less than seven years.

The offence should not have been committed by the accused against a woman or a child below the age of 14 years.

The accused should not be a juvenile who is covered under Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

The accused should not have earlier been convicted for the same offence.

The offence should not affect the socio-economic condition of the country.

However ADR can be used at any stage of a criminal case and is not subject to any of the limitations above. The quality of justice determines the quality of society and governance. Equal and fair justice is the hallmark of the society, “all government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter.” [12] Hence compromise and barter sometimes become a viable solution besides the traditional methods. Introducing various methods in our criminal dispensation would resolve the above predicaments in the following way;

In proceedings under various ADR techniques there is no presumption or any kind of burden of proof on either of the parties in fact both the parties are required to present their side of case and a third party decides and helps them to compromise the matter.

A case won or lost in a court of law does not change the mindset of the litigants who continue to be adversaries and go on fighting in appeals after appeals where as alternate dispute resolution systems enable the change to be caused in the mental approach of the parties because when a person goes to court, he knows that he shall win all or lose all but whereas, when he opts for any method of ADR or goes in for any informal settlement he knows well that he may not get all what he wants, but he will not lose everything.

The rights to accused in our justice system are given by the constitution which is the grund norm of our country and cannot be over ridded by ADR techniques and principles but however the same can be bypassed for e.g. where the accused chooses to remain silent the neutral party can try and extract some information by being informal.

Judges in such proceedings are not bound by any strict procedural rules hence can play an active role in arriving at a conclusion or can be a part of investigation also where early n本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。