Real judgements, distilled
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.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1073
In circumstantial-evidence cases, forensic and DNA evidence must actually corroborate the alleged crime: a conviction cannot survive where the most crucial scientific evidence, on its own terms, points away from rather than toward the prosecution's theory.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1074
A conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence requires every link in the chain, timeline, witness credibility, forensic matches, and motive, to be proven beyond reasonable doubt; gaps or suppressed evidence at any link entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt, even in a serious case like a double murder.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8505
Courts will not quash a criminal case merely because the accused has a plausible alibi-type defence; unless that defence is conclusive and undisputed, the matter must be tested through the ordinary trial process.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8547
A private compromise between victim and accused cannot by itself secure quashing of a case involving serious, heinous allegations like attempted murder with a weapon: such matters must proceed to trial regardless of settlement.
First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:8563
Railway Claims Tribunals cannot reject a bona fide passenger's death claim based on speculative inferences when there is no direct evidence of an alternative cause of death; the compensation scheme under the Railways Act is to be interpreted generously in favour of victims' families.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8559
In matrimonial offences, courts can and do quash criminal proceedings once a genuine compromise is verified directly with the complainant, sparing both parties a prolonged and pointless trial.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8541
A co-accused's bail does not automatically extend to another accused where their actual roles in the offence differ materially; delay caused by one's own defence counsel cannot later be used as a ground for bail.
Execution Petition · 2026:DHC:8567
An arbitral award must be adequately stamped before a court can enforce it; courts give only a limited window to cure such defects, after which the award becomes legally unusable until the deficiency is fixed.
Arbitration Petition · 2026:DHC:8555
A genuine settlement reached through mediation renders a pending arbitration-related court petition moot, allowing parties to close out litigation quickly once they resolve their dispute privately.
7878 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreLegal 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 ___).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A Drugs Inspector in Uttar Pradesh inspected a pharmacy, found medicines stored without a valid licence, and registered a police FIR against the shop owner under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Allahabad High Court quashed the FIR, holding that Section 32 of the Act, which restricts who can prosecute such offences, meant only designated authorities (not ordinary police under the CrPC) could investigate or prosecute drug offences, and that an ordinary police FIR was impermissible. The Union of India appealed, raising a larger question: when a drug-related offence is a "cognizable" one under the general criminal law, can police register an FIR and investigate it under the CrPC, or does the specialised procedure under the Drugs Act override the CrPC entirely, and who has the power to arrest.
The Supreme Court held that, for cognizable offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, an ordinary police officer cannot register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC or investigate or prosecute such offences, only the categories of persons specified in Section 32 of the Act (such as Drugs Inspectors) can prosecute, because Section 32 operates as a special procedure overriding the general CrPC scheme for these offences. It held that a Drugs Inspector can arrest without a warrant for such offences, subject to following CrPC safeguards and the D.K. Basu guidelines on arrest. Recognising that police had been registering FIRs and making arrests under a mistaken understanding of the law in many pending cases, the Court used its special constitutional powers (Article 142) to direct that already-registered FIRs be transferred to Drugs Inspectors, while ruling that its holding on the power of arrest would apply only prospectively from the date of the judgment (not retrospectively), and ultimately upheld the quashing of the FIR in this specific case.
When a special law like the Drugs and Cosmetics Act creates its own dedicated enforcement machinery and investigating/prosecuting authority, ordinary police cannot bypass it by registering a regular FIR under the general criminal procedure: a citizen accused of a drug-licensing offence should be proceeded against only by the specially empowered Drugs Inspector, not the local police station.
