The State Of Gujarat vs Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi
- SCC(2019) 13 SCC 361
- Neutral2018 INSC 1169
- SCR[2018] 14 SCR 1141
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an accused person is not a Government servant, the ingredients of Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (pertaining to public servants) cannot be satisfied merely by the recovery of currency notes from that person; however, the presence of currency notes recovered from such an accused, combined with other circumstances such as the presence of anthracene powder (a detection powder used in trap cases), may establish the ingredients of a substantive offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, warranting conviction under an appropriate section of that Act.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
“REPORTABLE”
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2597/2018 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 895/2018 (@ CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 895-896/2018)
STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
VERSUS
NAVINBHAI CHANDRAKANT JOSHI Respondent/ Applicant
O R D E R
This is a petition filed by the accused
no. 2/respondent no. 1 to modify the judgment dated
17.7.2018 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 895-896/2018. In
paragraph (3) of the judgment, the accused no. 2/respondent
no. 1 has been stated to be the Government servant, which is
not factually correct. Though, the accused no. 2/respondent
no. 1 is not a Government servant, bribe amount in currency
notes of Rs.500/- were recovered from him only; there were
signs of anthracene powder noticed from the shirt pocket of
the accused no. 2/respondent no. 1. Considering the fact
that currency notes were recovered form the accused no.
2/respondent no. 1, in our view, the ingredients of Section
8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are established. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK GUGLANI Date: 2018.12.08 The conviction of the accused no. 2/respondent no. 1 under 13:16:24 IST Reason: Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 is modified as the conviction under M.A. 2597/2018 in Crl.A. 895-896/2018 2 Section 8 of the said Act, and the sentence of one year
imposed is reduced to six months.
The judgment shall be modified accordingly.
....................CJI [Ranjan Gogoi]
....................J. [R. BANUMATHI New Delhi;
December 7, 2018.
M.A. 2597/2018 in Crl.A. 895-896/2018 3
ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.1 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
M.A. No. 2597/2018 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 895-896/2018
STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
VERSUS
NAVINBHAI CHANDRAKANT JOSHI Respondent/ Applicant
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.119535/2018-MODIFICATION)
Date : 07-12-2018 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
For Petitioner Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. (AOR) Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv.
Ms. Puja Singh, Adv.
Ms. Vishakha, Adv.
For Respondent/ Applicant Mr. Parthiv Goswami, Adv.
Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv. Ms. Taruna Singh Gohil, Adv. Mr. Vikash Singh, AOR Mr. Himanshu Chaubey, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Bhatnagar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
The judgment dated 17.7.2018 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 895-896/2018 is modified in terms of the signed reportable order.
M.A. No. 2597/2018 is accordingly disposed of.
(Deepak Guglani) (Anand Prakash) Court Master Court Master
(signed reportable order is placed on the file)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free