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

Ajay Kumar Gupta vs Union of India

Not available · 2024 INSC 619Decided 22 Aug 2024
Not available
Justice Abhay S. Oka · Justice Augustine George Masih

Background

The appellant, a licensed medical shop owner in Patna, was prosecuted along with two others under the NDPS Act after the Narcotics Control Bureau intercepted a consignment of Fortwin injections (containing the psychotropic substance pentazocine) being transported by train from Hajipur to Lucknow. The prosecution alleged the appellant had supplied the contraband to the person transporting it. The trial court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, and the High Court upheld the conviction.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that the courts below had relied heavily on the appellant's own statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, but the Court's earlier Constitution Bench ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu had already held such statements inadmissible as confessions since NCB officers are "police officers" for this purpose. Without that statement, there was no legal evidence linking the appellant to supplying the contraband; the person who allegedly transported the goods to him was never examined as a witness, and the prosecution withheld this evidence, warranting an adverse inference against it. Finding no proof of any conspiracy or actual transfer of the contraband by the appellant, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted him of all charges.

Lesson Learnt

A statement made to a Narcotics Control Bureau officer cannot be used as a confession to convict someone under the NDPS Act: genuine, independent evidence of a person's involvement is still required, and prosecutions cannot succeed by withholding key witnesses.

Ajay Kumar Gupta vs Union of India – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware