Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

A. Sreenivasa Reddy vs Rakesh Sharma & Anr.

Criminal Appeal · 2023 INSC 682Decided 8 Aug 2023
Criminal Appeal No. 2339 of 2023
B.R. Gavai · J.B. Pardiwala

Background

The appellant, an Assistant General Manager at a State Bank of India branch in Hyderabad, was accused by the CBI of conspiring with bank customers to get a company an improper Rs. 22.5 crore loan that was later diverted rather than used for its stated purpose. The bank's own sanctioning authority first refused permission to prosecute him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, then reversed itself and granted sanction; courts later quashed that reversed sanction, so the corruption-law charges against him fell away, but the ordinary IPC charges (cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy) continued. He asked the courts to drop the IPC case too, arguing that because sanction to prosecute him had been refused, and because government-employee protections under Section 197 CrPC required prior sanction, the whole prosecution should end.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Section 197 CrPC protection (which requires government sanction before prosecuting certain public servants) only applies to public servants who cannot be removed from office except with government sanction, and a bank manager at a nationalised bank does not fall into that special category, so no sanction was needed for the ordinary IPC offences. The Court also clarified that sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act and sanction under Section 197 CrPC serve different purposes and are examined separately; failure of one does not automatically kill prosecution under the other. Since the loan-related conduct is not inherently part of "official duty," and the IPC charges could stand independently of the PC Act sanction issue, the Court dismissed the appeal, allowing the IPC trial to continue.

Lesson Learnt

Being cleared of corruption-law charges for want of sanction does not automatically clear an accused of related but distinct criminal charges like cheating or forgery under the ordinary penal law: the two tracks are assessed on their own separate legal tests.

A. Sreenivasa Reddy vs Rakesh Sharma & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware