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

Shailyamanyu Singh v. The State of Maharashtra

Criminal Appeal · 2025 INSC 995Decided 22 Jul 2025
Crl.A. No.-003104-003104 - 2025 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 5618 of 2023)
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background

The appellant was a Non-Executive Director of Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Healthcare Ltd. (P&G), which distributed a pain-relief gel through a clearing agent. A Drug Inspector found an expired batch of the drug illegally stored at a dealer's premises and traced it back to P&G, which had also allegedly supplied the drug to another dealer lacking a valid licence. A criminal complaint was filed under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 naming the appellant along with the company and others, and the Bombay High Court refused to quash the summoning order against him.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined Section 34 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, which allows prosecution of a director only if there is a prima facie averment that the offence was committed with that director's "consent, connivance, or attributable neglect," or that he was in charge of and responsible for the company's day-to-day business. The Court found the complaint contained only a bald, omnibus allegation against the appellant and the company together, with no specific averment about his role, no inquiry by the Drug Inspector into which director was responsible for daily affairs, and no evidence he was anything other than a Non-Executive Director. Relying on its own precedent (Dayle De'Souza v. Union of India), the Court held that merely being a director does not create a presumption of vicarious criminal liability: the complainant must plead something more.

Lesson Learnt

Simply holding the title of "Director" of a company does not automatically expose a person to criminal prosecution for the company's regulatory violations; the prosecution must specifically show that person was actually responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the business or personally consented to or connived in the offence.

Shailyamanyu Singh v. The State of Maharashtra – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware