Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF GUJARAT versus NAVINBHAI CHANDRAKANT JOSHI (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2597 OF 2018)

Decided
7 December 2018
Judges listed
RANJAN GOGOI, R. BANUMATHI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Directions issued

Citations

Official
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1141 · 2018 INSC 1169

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

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.

p. 1142, margin A

The judgment shall be modified accordingly.

p. 1142, margin D