1. Petition to modify conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, following a factual error regarding the accused's status as a government servant. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 1731
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, CJI., R. BANUMATHI, J.
State Of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi - Respondent
Miscellaneous Application No. 2597 of 2018 In Criminal Appeal No. 895 of 2018 (@ Criminal Appeal Nos. 895-896/2018)
Decided on : 07-12-2018
Important Points
Recovery of bribe amount can establish the ingredients of the relevant section of the Prevention of Corruption Act, even if the accused is not a government servant.
Subject
Criminal Law - Corruption
Act Referred
Headnote
Prevention of Corruption Act - Modification of Conviction - Bribe Amount
Fact of the Case:
The accused filed a petition to modify the judgment, stating that he was not a government servant but bribe amount was recovered from him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that although the accused was not a government servant, the recovery of currency notes established the ingredients of Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act was modified to the conviction under Section 8, and the sentence was reduced to six months.
Issues: Accused's status as a government servant, recovery of bribe amount, and application of relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The recovery of currency notes from the accused established the ingredients of Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, leading to the modification of the conviction and reduction of the sentence.
Final Decision: The court modified the conviction and reduced the sentence of the accused based on the recovery of bribe amount.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Ms. Puja Singh, Ms. Vishakha, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Parthiv Goswami, Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Ms. Taruna Singh Gohil, Mr. Vikash Singh, Mr. Himanshu Chaubey, Ms. Tanvi Bhatnagar, Adv.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Ms. Puja Singh, Ms. Vishakha, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Parthiv Goswami, Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Ms. Taruna Singh Gohil, Mr. Vikash Singh, Mr. Himanshu Chaubey, Ms. Tanvi Bhatnagar, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. The accused contended that the finding identifying them as a government servant in the previous judgment was factually incorrect. (Para 1 )
3. Recovery of bribe currency and presence of anthracene powder on the accused's clothing establish the ingredients of Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (Para 1 )
4. Conviction under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is sustainable upon recovery of bribe money, regardless of whether the accused is a government servant. (Para 1 )
5. Conviction modified to Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentence reduced to six months. (Para 1 , 2 )
6. Can a person be convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, if they are not a government servant?
Yes, a person who is not a government servant can be convicted under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, provided the ingredients of that section are established. (Para 1 )
7. What evidence is sufficient to establish the ingredients of an offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
The recovery of bribe currency notes from the accused and the detection of anthracene powder on their clothing are sufficient to establish the ingredients of the offence. (Para 1 )
ORDER :
1. 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. The conviction of the accused no. 2/respondent no. 1 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is modified as the conviction under Section 8 of the said Act, and the sentence of one year imposed is reduced to six months.
2. The judgment shall be modified accordingly.
