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

Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram v. Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 724Decided 21 Jul 2026
Criminal Appeal No. 1365 of 2015
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan · Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Background

In a civil property dispute, the appellant filed a miscellaneous appeal and stay application (drafted by his lawyer's typist) that contained inaccuracies, for example, using the word "dismissed" where an earlier order had actually been "disposed of," and omitting the word "no" in one sentence. The opposing party accused the appellant and his counsel of deliberately lying to secure a stay, and after a contempt petition was dropped, obtained an order under Section 340 CrPC directing that a criminal complaint be filed against both for giving false evidence; the High Court upheld this direction.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court quashed the direction to prosecute, holding that the lower courts had only found "wrong statements", not the deliberate, knowing "false statements" that Sections 193, 199 and 200 of the Penal Code require. It stressed that an inadvertent or typographical error, especially one for which a correction application had already been filed before any complaint was made, does not meet the threshold of deliberate falsehood needed to trigger criminal proceedings. The Court also found that the trial court had failed to separately record why prosecuting would be "expedient in the interest of justice," a mandatory requirement under Section 340(1), and criticised the High Court for going further than the original order by making a fresh finding of a "false affidavit" in an appeal filed only by the aggrieved party.

Lesson Learnt

Not every incorrect statement made in court papers is a crime. Courts can only order perjury-type prosecutions where there is a genuine, deliberate falsehood intended to deceive, and even then, only after separately concluding that prosecution actually serves the interests of justice; honest drafting or typing errors, especially ones promptly flagged for correction, do not qualify.

Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram v. Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware