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

Mohammed Khalid and Another vs The State of Telangana

Not available · 2024 INSC 158Decided 1 Mar 2024
Not available
Justice B.R. Gavai · Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background

Acting on a tip-off, police intercepted a vehicle near Hyderabad in 2009 and allegedly seized about 80 kg of ganja from two occupants (A-1 and A-2), who were arrested on the spot after being served notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The appellants (A-3 and A-4, including Mohammed Khalid) were subsequently implicated as co-conspirators in the sale/purchase of the ganja, based mainly on the "interrogation notes" recorded from A-1 and A-2. The trial court convicted all the accused under the NDPS Act and sentenced them to ten years' rigorous imprisonment; the Telangana High Court upheld the conviction on appeal.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that the entire case against the appellants (A-3 and A-4) rested on the interrogation/confession notes of the co-accused recorded by a police officer. It reiterated the settled and fundamental rule of evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act that a confession made to a police officer is not admissible in evidence at all. Since neither the trial court nor the High Court had addressed this fatal flaw, and there was no other credible evidence connecting the appellants to the offence, the Court held the prosecution had failed to prove the case and that the conviction suffered from a high degree of legal perversity. It quashed the conviction, acquitted the appellants of all charges, and ordered their immediate release.

Lesson Learnt

A confession recorded by a police officer cannot be used as evidence against an accused or a co-accused: convictions built primarily on such inadmissible material cannot stand, however serious the alleged offence.

Mohammed Khalid and Another vs The State of Telangana – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware