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

N. Damodaran v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 751Decided 24 Jul 2026
Criminal Appeal No. 3427 of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11930 of 2024)
Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Background

The appellant, a Junior Engineer with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in Coimbatore, was convicted of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 10,000 from a contractor who had applied for an electricity service connection on his wife's behalf, over and above the legitimate deposit required. He was caught in a trap laid by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing after the contractor complained, and was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment, a sentence upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court had earlier granted him only limited leave to appeal, restricted to the question of how severe the sentence should be.

Decision Breakdown

The Court examined the evidence: testimony from the complainant, an accompanying witness, an independent witness, and the trap officer, along with the positive chemical test on the appellant's hands and pocket, and found the conviction fully justified, rejecting the appellant's defence that the complaint was motivated by a personal grudge. However, it noted that at the time the offence was committed, the law prescribed lower minimum sentences (six months for one provision, one year for the other) than what was later applied, and reduced his sentence to those statutory minimums while leaving the fine and default sentence unchanged.

Lesson Learnt

Even where a corruption conviction is fully justified on the evidence, a person must be sentenced according to the punishment that the law actually prescribed at the time the offence was committed, not any harsher punishment introduced by a later amendment.