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

Vipin Sahni and Anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Not available · 2024 INSC 284Decided 8 Apr 2024
Not available
Justice Aniruddha Bose · Justice Sanjay Kumar

Background

The appellants, a husband and wife who ran an educational society in Noida, were accused of obtaining AICTE approvals for three educational institutions by concealing that the land used was mortgaged to a bank. A trial court discharged them of cheating and criminal conspiracy charges, but the Allahabad High Court, acting on a CBI petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (long after the 90-day limitation period for a criminal revision had expired), set aside the discharge and revived the case.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that the first application had actually disclosed the mortgage and bank loan, and the AICTE granted approval despite this disclosure and never itself complained of being deceived, so an essential ingredient of "cheating" (dishonest inducement of the deceived party) was missing. The Court also held that the CBI could not use the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to bypass the 90-day limitation period that applies to a criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., since a specific statutory remedy existed. On both grounds, the discharge order was restored and the appellants were fully discharged.

Lesson Learnt

A cheating charge cannot survive when the very party alleged to have been deceived was informed of the material facts and raises no complaint of deception, and a litigant cannot use the High Court's inherent Section 482 powers as a backdoor to escape a missed limitation period for the specific remedy of revision.

Vipin Sahni and Anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware