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

Tedhi Singh vs Narayan Dass Mahant

Criminal AppealDecided 7 Mar 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 362 of 2022

Background

The respondent complained that he had lent the appellant Rs. 7 lakh out of friendship in 2011, and that the cheque the appellant gave in return was dishonoured. The Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the appellant under Section 138 of the NI Act, sentencing him to one year's imprisonment plus Rs. 7 lakh compensation; the Sessions Judge and the High Court both upheld this. The appellant tried to raise a "probable defence" (examining four bank officials to suggest the complainant lacked the financial capacity to lend such a sum, and claiming his cheque had been lost and misused) and appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Court reaffirmed that under Section 139 of the NI Act there is a rebuttable presumption that a cheque was issued for a debt, and the accused only needs to establish a "probable defence" on a preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond doubt. However, examining the record, the Court found the appellant's own reply notice had admitted a cordial relationship with the complainant and never raised the "lost cheque" story or the complainant's alleged lack of funds: that story surfaced only later at trial, undermining its credibility. Since three courts below had already ruled against the appellant and the evidence did not show a probable defence, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence: the one-year jail term was replaced with a Rs. 5,000 fine (with a month's imprisonment in default) plus an additional Rs. 15,000 compensation to the complainant.

Lesson Learnt

A person accused of cheque bounce must raise their real defence at the earliest opportunity (such as in the reply to the legal notice): an explanation invented only later at trial is far less likely to be believed, even though the accused's burden is only to show a "probable" defence, not conclusive proof.

Tedhi Singh vs Narayan Dass Mahant – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware