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

State through Inspector of Police, CBI Chennai vs. Naresh Prasad Agarwal & Anr.

Not available · 2024 INSC 120Decided 13 Feb 2024
Not available
Justice Abhay S. Oka · Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Background

A single judge of the Madras High Court had decided two connected matters, a petition to quash a CBI charge sheet and a revision against rejection of a discharge application, in the same case. The judge pronounced only a one-line operative order on 17 April 2017, then demitted (left) office on 26 May 2017. The detailed reasoned judgment, running over 250 pages, was released only on 23 October 2017: nearly five months after the judge had already left office. The CBI appealed to the Supreme Court, raising this irregularity as a ground to set aside the judgment.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found it "an act of gross impropriety" for a judge to retain a case file and finalize a detailed judgment nearly five months after demitting office, despite having five weeks available beforehand to do so. Citing Lord Hewart's century-old maxim that "justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done," the Court held it could not endorse such a practice, regardless of the merits of the underlying case. It declined the respondents' request to hear the matter on merits itself, and instead set aside the High Court's judgment entirely, remitting both the quashing petition and the revision application back to the High Court for a fresh decision, with no view expressed on the merits of the actual dispute.

Lesson Learnt

A judge must release the reasoned judgment within a reasonable time of pronouncing the operative order, ideally before leaving office, because judicial legitimacy depends as much on the process being seen as fair as on the final outcome. Even a substantively correct decision can be undone if it wasn't produced through a proper process.

State through Inspector of Police, CBI Chennai vs. Naresh Prasad Agarwal & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware