In 2007, the Sakharam Bandekar case was the first such case in India where the accused, Sakharam Bandekar, sought a lesser sentence in exchange for a confession to his crime (using pleadings). However, the court rejected his request and accepted the CBI`s argument that the accused faced serious corruption charges.  Eventually, the court sentenced Bandekar to three years in prison.  Oral arguments were defended as a voluntary exchange, which is better placed for both parties, given that the accused have many procedural and material rights, including the right to be tried and to invoke a guilty verdict. By pleading guilty, the accused waive these rights in exchange for an obligation of the prosecutor, such as for example. B a reduced charge or a more favourable sentence.  For an accused who believes that a conviction is almost certain, a discount on the verdict is more useful than an unlikely chance of acquittal.  The prosecutor ensures a conviction while avoiding the need to devote time and resources to preparing for the trial and a possible trial.  Oral arguments similarly help to save money and resources for the court where the prosecution is taking place. It also means that victims and witnesses do not have to testify at trial, which can be traumatic in some cases.  In the event of a pleading, problems may arise with the Agency, because if the prosecutor represents the people and the defence counsel of the accused, the objectives of these agents may not correspond to those of their sponsors. For example, prosecutors and defense lawyers may try to maintain good relations with each other, which creates a potential conflict with the parties they represent.
A defense attorney may receive a lump sum fee for representing a client or not receive additional money to take a case to court, prompting the defense attorney to settle a case in order to increase profits or avoid financial loss. However, the Tribunal may oppose the terms of the proposed pleading agreement (even if it has already been agreed between the accused, the victim and the prosecutor) and propose amendments (not specific, but rather general). If the accused accepts these proposals and modifies his proposed sentence, the court authorizes him and renders the verdict in accordance with the pleading agreement. Despite the agreement, all parties to the trial: the prosecution, the accused and the victim as an auxiliary prosecutor (in Poland, the victim can declare that he wishes to act as an “auxiliary prosecutor” and therefore obtains similar rights to the official prosecutor) – have the right to appeal. [Citation required] An admission of guilt by the accused is not sufficient to render a guilty verdict. (Article 212 of the Georgian Code of Criminal Procedure) Therefore, the Tribunal is required to discuss two issues: it is essential for the Canadian judicial system that new negotiations can take place for the final decision of criminal proceedings, even after the judgment order . . . .