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 LawDelhi High Court

Beer Singh vs. CBI

Criminal Appeal · 2026:DHC:8113Decided 22 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
CRL.A. 578/2010CNR: DLHC010733392010
Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav

Background

The appellant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector with CISF, was convicted by the trial court for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 3,000 from a CISF Inspector in exchange for releasing a Rs. 10,000 sports kit allowance cheque. He was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment under the Prevention of Corruption Act. On appeal, he argued that the cheque had already been handed over before the trap was laid, that he had no authority over the allowance, and that the recovered money was actually repayment of a personal loan.

Decision Breakdown

The High Court held that even though the cheque had been delivered a day before the trap, the complainant's consistent testimony, the pre-raid verification conversation, voice-identification evidence, and recovery of the tainted currency together proved a continuing demand and acceptance of gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant's "loan" explanation was found to be unsupported by any documentary proof and insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of guilt. The conviction and sentence were upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

Lesson Learnt

A public servant who demands money linked to official work commits bribery even if he has already performed the underlying favour; an unsupported after-the-fact excuse cannot undo strong evidence of demand and acceptance.

Beer Singh vs. CBI – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware