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

Rajesh Gupta vs. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation

Criminal AppealDecided 29 Mar 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 1769 of 2014
Vineet Saran · J.K. Maheshwari

Background

The appellant, an Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, was accused of demanding and accepting a Rs. 15,000 bribe from a taxpayer, Madhu Bala, in connection with the scrutiny of her income tax case in 2000. He was convicted by the trial court and the conviction was upheld by the Delhi High Court, based on a CBI "trap" operation, a recorded phone conversation, and recovery of marked currency notes from his office table.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, finding serious gaps in the prosecution's proof of both the "demand" and the "acceptance" of the bribe, both of which the law requires to be proved beyond reasonable doubt before a corruption conviction can stand or any legal presumption of guilt can be applied. The key recorded conversation was inaudible and the transcript relied on to interpret it was of doubtful origin (the CBI had earlier told the trial court no such transcript existed). Independent "shadow witnesses" who accompanied the complainant did not actually witness the alleged handover, two officers present nearby did not support the demand allegation, and the phenolphthalein chemical test on the appellant's own hands came back negative, with only indirect traces found via other means. Mere recovery of currency notes, the Court held, is not enough to prove guilt without solid, corroborated proof of an actual demand and knowing, voluntary acceptance of a bribe.

Lesson Learnt

In corruption cases, prosecutors must prove an actual demand for a bribe and its knowing acceptance with cogent, corroborated evidence: simply finding marked currency near an accused official is not, by itself, sufficient to convict.

Rajesh Gupta vs. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware