Supreme Court of India
STATE OF GUJARAT versus NAVINBHAI CHANDRAKANT JOSHI (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2597 OF 2018) on 7 December 2018
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1141
STATE OF GUJARAT
v.
NAVINBHAI CHANDRAKANT JOSHI
(Miscellaneous Application No. 2597 of 2018)
in
(Criminal Appeal No. 895 of 2018)
DECEMBER 07, 2018
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Judgments/Orders – Modification of – Application filed byrespondent no.1-accused no.2 seeking modification of the judgmentdated 17.07.2018 reported in [2018] 9 SCR 329 wherein he wasstated to be a Government servant, which is not factually correct –Held: Though, the respondent no.1 is not a Government servant,bribe amount in currency notes of Rs.500/- were recovered fromhim only – Thus, the ingredients of s.8, 1988 Act are established –Conviction of respondent no.1 u/ss.7 and 13(2) of the 1988 Act ismodified as conviction u/s.8, 1988 Act – Sentence of oneyear reduced to six months – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 –ss.7, 8 and 13(2).
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : MiscellaneousApplication No. 2597 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 895/2018 (@Criminal Appeal Nos. 895-896/2018).
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.04.2015 of the High Courtof Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 477 and 478 of 2000.
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Ms. Puja Singh,Ms. Vishakha Advs. for the Appellant.
Parthiv Goswami, Pradhuman Gohil, Ms. Taruna Singh Gohil,Vikash Singh, Himanshu Chaubey, Ms. Tanvi Bhatnagar Advs. for theRespondent/Applicant.
1141
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
AThe following Order of the Court was passed :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
This is a petition filed by the accused no. 2/respondent no. 1 tomodify the judgment dated 17.7.2018 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 895-896/2018. In paragraph (3) of the judgment, the accused no. 2/respondentBno. 1 has been stated to be the Government servant, which is not factuallycorrect. Though, the accused no. 2/respondent no. 1 is not a Governmentservant, bribe amount in currency notes of Rs.500/- were recoveredfrom him only; there were signs of anthracene powder noticed from theshirt pocket of the accused no. 2/respondent no. 1. Considering the factCthat currency notes were recovered form the accused no. 2/respondentno. 1, in our view, the ingredients of Section 8 of the Prevention ofCorruption Act, 1988 are established. The conviction of the accused no.2/respondent no. 1 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of thePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is modified as the conviction underSection 8 of the said Act, and the sentence of one year imposed is reducedDto six months.
The judgment shall be modified accordingly.
Divya Pandey
Earlier judgment modified.
E
F
G
H