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

Jagtar Singh vs The State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No. 2136 of 2010)

Criminal AppealDecided 23 Mar 2023
Criminal Appeal No. 2136 of 2010
Abhay S. Oka · Rajesh Bindal

Background

The appellant, an office cleaner, was convicted by a Trial Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court for demanding and accepting Rs. 300 as illegal gratification for supplying a death certificate. The complainant and the shadow witness who allegedly witnessed the handover both turned hostile during the trial and did not support the prosecution's version of events. The only remaining evidence was that of a vigilance officer who recovered marked currency notes from the appellant.

Decision Breakdown

Applying the Constitution Bench ruling in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court held that mere recovery of tainted money from a public servant, without proof of a "demand" for illegal gratification (through direct evidence or a valid circumstantial inference), cannot sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Since the complainant and the shadow witness had turned hostile and no other evidence proved the demand, the Trial Court's own finding of no evidence of demand was correct, and the High Court had wrongly assumed a demand simply because money was recovered. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and discharged his bail bond.

Lesson Learnt

In bribery prosecutions, the prosecution must prove both a demand for illegal gratification and its acceptance: recovery of money alone, especially where key witnesses turn hostile, is not enough to convict.

Jagtar Singh vs The State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No. 2136 of 2010) – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware