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

Noor Mohammed vs. Khurram Pasha

Criminal AppealDecided 2 Aug 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 1123 of 2022
Uday Umesh Lalit · S. Ravindra Bhat · Sudhanshu Dhulia

Background

The respondent had lent money to the appellant, who repaid it with a cheque that bounced for insufficient funds. A complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During trial, the appellant was directed to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as "interim compensation" under Section 143A of the Act but failed to do so. Because of this non-payment, the trial court refused to let him cross-examine the complainant, convicted him, and this was upheld by both the Sessions Court and the Karnataka High Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined Section 143A closely and found that it only empowers the court to order interim compensation and, separately, provides one specific remedy for non-payment: recovery of the amount as if it were a fine (under Section 421 of the CrPC). Relying on the established principle that when a law prescribes a particular way to do something, that is the only way it may be done, the Court held that denying an accused person the fundamental right to cross-examine a witness is nowhere authorized as a consequence of non-payment. Since this denial caused real prejudice and tainted the fairness of the trial, the Court set aside the convictions of all three courts below, restored the case to the trial court, and directed that the appellant now be allowed to cross-examine the complainant before the case proceeds further.

Lesson Learnt

A court cannot invent extra penalties beyond what a statute specifically allows. If a law says the only remedy for a default is X, a court cannot also impose penalty Y (like denying cross-examination) as an additional or substitute sanction, especially where it touches a basic fair-trial right.

Noor Mohammed vs. Khurram Pasha – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware