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

Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr.

Not available · 2025 INSC 1158Decided 25 Sept 2025
Not available
Justice Manmohan · Justice N.V. Anjaria

Background

The complainant had advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 6,00,000 to the accused, who issued a cheque that was later dishonoured. Both the Trial Court and the Sessions Court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding he failed to rebut the statutory presumption that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt. The Goa High Court, in a revision, reversed these concurrent findings and acquitted the accused ex-parte, questioning the complainant's financial capacity to advance such a loan and accepting the accused's defence that a blank signed cheque had merely been given to help him obtain a bank loan.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held the High Court had wrongly upset concurrent factual findings in revisional jurisdiction without any finding of "perversity," which the law does not permit. It reaffirmed that once execution of a cheque is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act arise, and the burden shifts to the accused to disprove the debt with credible evidence, which the accused had not done here. The Court restored the conviction and modified the sentence to a monetary payment of Rs. 7,50,000 in 15 monthly instalments. Separately, taking note of the massive nationwide backlog of cheque-bounce cases, the Court issued an extensive set of procedural directions to trial courts nationwide, covering dasti service of summons, standardized complaint formats, UPI-based payment facilitation, revised compounding-cost guidelines, and dashboard-based monitoring of pendency, to speed up disposal of Section 138 NI Act cases.

Lesson Learnt

Once a person admits signing a cheque, the law presumes it was issued to repay a real debt, and the burden is on that person to prove otherwise with real evidence: a bare denial or an unproven "it was just for a bank loan" story will not be enough to escape liability.

Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware