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

Satbir Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

SLP(Crl.) · 2023 INSC 786Decided 29 Aug 2023
SLP(Crl.) No. 1258 of 2022
Ahsanuddin Amanullah · S.V.N. Bhatti

Background

Satbir Singh complained that former employees of his company had stolen confidential data and used it to manufacture equipment identical to his company's products. During the criminal trial, Singh gave his evidence before the Forensic Sciences Laboratory (CFSL) report on the seized hard disks was ready. When the CFSL expert was later examined, he described the data found but never confirmed whether it actually matched what was allegedly stolen from Singh's company. Singh then applied, within five days, to be recalled as a witness so he could address this specific gap, but both the Trial Court and the High Court rejected his request.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court reviewed its settled case law on Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows a court to recall a witness where doing so is "essential for the just decision of the case." The Court found this was a genuine, narrow case for recall: Singh had no earlier opportunity to address the comparison-of-data point because that issue only crystallised after the CFSL expert's testimony, and there was no unreasonable delay in seeking the recall. The Court also found the other side would not be prejudiced since they would still get a full opportunity to cross-examine Singh again. It allowed the appeal, set aside the lower courts' orders, and permitted the recall, while directing the trial be completed within nine months.

Lesson Learnt

A witness can be recalled for further examination during a trial when a genuinely new and essential point arises later in the proceedings, but the power is discretionary and used sparingly, only where recall is truly necessary for a just outcome and not simply to patch up an earlier oversight.

Satbir Singh vs State of Haryana and Others – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware