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

Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Dilip Mulani & Anr.

Not available · 2024 INSC 712Decided 20 Sept 2024
Not available
Justice Abhay S. Oka · Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Background

Dilip Mulani, Managing Director of a Mumbai customs-clearing company, was chargesheeted along with five others for conspiracy to bribe customs officials in exchange for clearing customs duty refund claims for the company's clients. The High Court discharged him twice, the second time after the Supreme Court had earlier sent the matter back for a fuller review, finding the evidence against him too thin. The CBI appealed to the Supreme Court against this discharge.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court closely examined the chargesheet and a diary maintained by a co-accused that recorded illegal payments, in which the initials "DM" appeared next to entries about bribe money. The CBI's own reply to the discharge application had earlier admitted that "DM" referred to a different co-accused, Dushyant Mulani, not to the respondent, Dilip Mulani. Beyond this diary entry, the Court found only a bare, unparticularised allegation that Dilip Mulani was part of the criminal conspiracy, with no specific evidence connecting him to any actual payment. Since even taking the chargesheet's material at face value it did not disclose a prima facie case against him, the Court upheld the discharge and dismissed the CBI's appeal.

Lesson Learnt

At the stage of framing charges, courts must find a genuine prima facie case grounded in actual evidence: a vague conspiracy allegation, unsupported by specific material connecting the accused to the offence, cannot justify putting someone on trial.

Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Dilip Mulani & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware