LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

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

Lalankumar Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra

Criminal Appeal · 2022 INSC 1061Decided 11 Oct 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 1757 of 2022
B.R. Gavai · C.T. Ravikumar

Background

The appellants were Directors of Cachet Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (CPPL), a licensed manufacturer of "Hemfer Syrup." After a Drugs Inspector's sample of the syrup was found substandard (deficient Cyanocobalamin content), a criminal complaint was filed and the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Beed, issued process against the appellants and others. The appellants challenged this before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad bench), which dismissed their writ petition and upheld both the order of issuance of process and the Sessions Court's dismissal of their revision petition, leading to this appeal.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found the complaint lacking in specific averments against the appellants under Section 34 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act. They were neither the managing director nor whole-time directors, and the complaint failed to show they were in charge of and responsible for the company's day-to-day conduct, as required for vicarious liability. Separately (and independently), other named accused had already been specifically approved under the relevant Rules as the persons responsible for manufacturing supervision and quality testing, further undermining any case against the appellant-directors. The Court also found a fundamental procedural defect: no formal order of issuance of process had actually been passed by the CJM. The High Court had merely inferred from the "Roznama" (daily case-diary notings) that such an order existed. Relying on precedent (Sunil Bharti Mittal), the Court held that an order issuing process is not an empty formality and must reflect the Magistrate's application of mind that a prima facie case exists; presuming such an order from incidental record entries, with no actual reasoned order, is legally unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, the process-issuance and revision-dismissal orders were quashed, and the complaint against the appellants alone was dismissed (proceedings against the remaining accused were to continue).

Lesson Learnt

Directors of a company cannot be roped into criminal liability merely by virtue of their designation: a complaint must specifically aver how they were in charge of and responsible for the company's affairs; and an order issuing criminal process against an accused must itself reflect the magistrate's actual application of mind, not be inferred after the fact from incidental court-diary entries.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)
Lalankumar Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware