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

J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Criminal AppealDecided 5 May 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2022
Vineet Saran · J.K. Maheshwari

Background

J. Sekar Reddy, managing partner of a sand-mining firm, had deposited a large amount of money (over Rs. 312 crore) across bank accounts. During the 2016 demonetisation period, the Income Tax Department raided his premises and seized over Rs. 106 crore in cash (much of it in newly-introduced Rs. 2000 notes) and a large quantity of gold. The CBI registered a case (the "schedule offence") against him, but this was later closed for want of evidence, and separate FIRs on the same allegations were also quashed by the High Court. Despite this, the Enforcement Directorate continued to prosecute him for money laundering under the PMLA, arguing that money laundering is an independent offence. The Madras High Court refused to quash the PMLA proceedings, and Sekar Reddy appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the PMLA proceedings against him. It held that while money laundering is technically a distinct offence from the underlying "scheduled offence," a valid scheduled offence must still exist as its foundation, and here, the CBI itself had closed its case for lack of evidence, related FIRs had been quashed, and even the Income Tax Department's own report had found no evidence of wrongdoing. After more than five years, the Enforcement Directorate had still failed to produce any material capable of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. Relying on its earlier rulings in Radheshyam Kejriwal and Ashoo Surendranath Tewari, the Court held that continuing the prosecution in these circumstances was unjustified, since a person remains presumed innocent until proven guilty and cannot be kept indefinitely under prosecution on an unproven foundation.

Lesson Learnt

A money-laundering prosecution cannot indefinitely continue in a vacuum. If the underlying criminal case it depends on has been closed for lack of evidence and no independent evidence of laundering exists after a reasonable passage of time, courts can and will quash the proceedings to prevent prolonged, baseless prosecution.

J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy vs. Directorate of Enforcement – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware