Case Law on a Section: How to Go From a Bare Act to the Judgments on eCourtsIndia

Last updated: 3 November 2026

Key takeaways

• Start from the provision, not the party. Every IndiaCode section page carries the verbatim text, a list of related reported judgments marked Binding or Persuasive, and search links that open eCourtsIndia results for that section.
• Two lists, two jobs. “Related judgements & precedents” is a curated set of reported decisions that construed the section. “Judgments citing this section” shows orders that quote it. Neither is a complete digest.
• Search both numbers across the 2024 changeover. IPC 420 maps to BNS 318 only as “close”, and a search for one number will not find records filed under the other.
• The case page closes the loop. Open the judgment, read its text and AI summary, and follow the provisions it cites back to IndiaCode.
• Court records are messy. The act and section on a case record is whatever the court registry typed, and parsed citations are still thin. Treat every search count as a floor, not a census.

What does case law on a section mean, and where does it live on eCourtsIndia?

It means the decisions that applied or interpreted a provision, and on eCourtsIndia you reach them from the provision itself. There are three layers: the curated reported judgments on the IndiaCode section page, the full-text case index at ecourtsindia.com/search, and the text of each order.

Most of us were taught to research the other way round. You start with a party name or a reporter citation, read the judgment, and only then look up the section it turned on. That works when a senior hands you the citation. It does not work at 9 pm before a bail hearing when all you have is a charge sheet that says “318(4) BNS” and a client who wants to know what the courts have said about it.

IndiaCode by eCourtsIndia was built to run in that direction. It is an independent, section-by-section edition of the statute book, with 10,000+ Acts and 2.7 lakh+ sections, each on its own permanent URL. It is not the government’s India Code at indiacode.gov.in, which the Legislative Department of the Ministry of Law and Justice maintains, and the Official Gazette remains the authoritative text of any Act. The IndiaCode overview explains the whole site; this guide is about one job, getting from a section to its case law.

The page headings on IndiaCode explain the first two lists in their own words. The related list is described as “judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value”. The citing list is described as judgments “where this section is quoted”, which “may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study”. That difference matters when you decide what goes into a written submission and what stays in your research notes.

How do I find case law on a section, step by step?

Open the section, read its text, read the reported judgments under it, click a search link, narrow the results, then read the order and follow its citations back.

1. Open the section on IndiaCode. Type the citation in the search box (ni act 138, bns 318) or go straight to the URL, which follows the words people use: indiacode.ecourtsindia.com/ni-act/section/138/. The IndiaCode search guide lists the query forms it understands.
2. Read the text first. Look at the provisos and explanations, the amendment footnotes and, for an offence, the classification table from the First Schedule to the BNSS. Case law makes sense only against the words it construed.
3. Read the related reported judgments. Note the court, the date and the Binding or Persuasive label. Each entry has a holding note and links to the case on eCourtsIndia.
4. Click a search link. Each section page offers ready-made searches into the case index, in the spellings people actually use. They open ecourtsindia.com/search with the query filled in.
5. Narrow the results. Filter by court, year, case type or status until you are looking at your own High Court or your own district. The eCourtsIndia search guide covers every filter.
6. Read the order and go back to the law. Open the judgment on the case page, read its text and the AI summary, and check every provision it cites against IndiaCode before you rely on it.

Worked example 1: what is the case law on Section 138 of the NI Act?

The Section 138 page on IndiaCode lists more than a dozen related reported judgments, most of them Supreme Court decisions marked Binding. The Supreme Court line includes MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and Rangappa v. Sri Mohan.

Start with the text, which we read through the eCourtsIndia MCP on 3 November 2026. Section 138 makes the dishonour of a cheque for insufficient funds an offence, punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both. The proviso then sets three conditions: the cheque is presented within six months of its date or within its validity, whichever is earlier; the payee gives written notice of demand within thirty days of learning that it bounced; and the drawer fails to pay within fifteen days of receiving that notice. The cheque bounce litigation story on this blog shows how much of India’s criminal docket rests on those few lines.

Now the case law. The page gives each reported judgment a short holding note, extracted by eCourtsIndia from the judgment and labelled as such. Three of them, quoted from the page:

• Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (Supreme Court, 7 May 2010, Binding). The note says the presumption under Section 139 “extends to include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability”, that it is rebuttable, and that the accused rebuts it on a “preponderance of probabilities”.
• Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (Supreme Court, 1 August 2014, Binding). The note records that the offence is complete on dishonour at the drawee bank and that territorial jurisdiction lies there, then adds its own warning: Parliament later inserted Section 142(2) by the 2015 amendment, so the territorial holding is partly superseded.
• MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan (Supreme Court, 10 September 2013, Binding). The note says a prosecution on a second or successive dishonour is permissible if all three conditions in the proviso are met for that dishonour.

The Dashrath note is the reason you never stop at a holding. We read Section 142 on the same day: sub-section (2) now says the offence “shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction” the payee’s bank branch is situated, where the cheque was delivered for collection through an account. A junior who cited the 2014 holding on jurisdiction without reading the amended section would be citing law that Parliament has since changed.

Below the related list, the page shows a second list, “Judgments citing this section”, with recent Supreme Court orders from 2025. Below that sit five search links: NI Act 138, section 138 NI Act, section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, ni act 138 punishment and ni act 138 procedure. Each opens the eCourtsIndia case index, for example ecourtsindia.com/search?q=section 138 NI Act.

Following one judgment from the section to the order and back

Click MSR Leathers and you land on the case page at ecourtsindia.com/cnr/SCIN010047712001. We opened the record through the eCourtsIndia MCP on 3 November 2026. It is a Criminal Appeal in the Supreme Court, filed on 14 March 2001 and now disposed, before a bench of K.S. Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose JJ. The record carries 12 orders, two of them judgments, dated 26 September 2012 and 10 September 2013, and lists the High Court revision petitions from Tamil Nadu that the appeal came from.

The judgment of 10 September 2013 explains the history in eleven paragraphs. A Division Bench had doubted the earlier view in Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar and referred the question to a larger Bench by an order dated 25 March 2009. Paragraph 10 then records the result: the larger Bench “overruled the decision in Sadanandan Bhadran’s case” and held that “the prosecution based on second or successive dishonour of the cheque is also permissible so long as it satisfies the requirements stipulated under the proviso to Section 138 of the Act.” The appeals were allowed.

The AI summary on that order lists the legal provisions it cites as Section 138 and Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Each of those is a link you can check on IndiaCode, which is the last step: from the order, back to the exact words of the law it applied. That is the loop, and it takes a handful of clicks.

One honest detail from the same test. When we asked the API for the parsed statutory citations on this Supreme Court record, it returned none, and the tool said so plainly: parsed citations are not yet populated for most cases, and Supreme Court records usually carry no act and section line at all. For older Supreme Court matters, the order text and its summary are where the citation lives.

Worked example 2: BNS 318, and why you search IPC 420 as well

BNS 318 is the cheating section of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and IndiaCode records IPC 415 as its near-identical predecessor and IPC 418 and 420 as close ones. Matters registered before 1 July 2024 cite the IPC number, so a search for BNS 318 alone misses most of the case law on cheating.

We ran both searches. As of 3 November 2026, BNS 318 returned 18,523 records in the eCourtsIndia case index, while IPC 420 returned more than 21 lakh; at that size the count stops being exact, because relevance-ranked searches count precisely only up to 1 lakh. The new section has been in force for a little over two years. The old one has been on charge sheets since 1860. If you are looking for how a High Court reads “dishonestly induces delivery of property”, almost all of that reasoning sits under IPC 420.

The reported list on the BNS 318 page shows the same thing from the other side. Many of its entries are IPC-era decisions attached to the successor section: V. Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat (Supreme Court, 16 December 2008), Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of U.P. (Supreme Court, 9 January 2013) and, more recently, Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Supreme Court, 23 August 2024). The judgments construed the old words; IndiaCode places them under the section that now carries those words.

The section also shows why classification has to be read row by row. BNS 318 creates three offences, and the BNSS First Schedule classifies each one separately. This is what the API returned for the section on 3 November 2026:

The old IPC 420 offence corresponds to the last row, which is cognizable and non-bailable. Simple cheating under 318(2) is bailable. If you take only the first line of any summary, you will get the wrong answer for a 420-type allegation, so always read the full table. Our sibling guide on checking whether a BNS offence is bailable walks through more of these. Remember that classification decides procedure, such as arrest without warrant and bail as of right; it never decides how a court will rule on a bail plea.

Why do I have to search the old and the new section number?

Because a case record carries whatever number the FIR, complaint or charge used, and the new codes renumbered the old ones. A matter that began under IPC 420 keeps that number on its record even if a later order mentions BNS 318, and a new complaint is filed under BNS 318 from day one.

The mapping is the bridge. IndiaCode’s IPC to BNS converter and the API’s equivalents give you the other number with a relation label. These are the pairs this guide relies on, each read on 3 November 2026:

There is a second reason, and it has nothing to do with the 2024 changeover. Court registries type the act and section by hand, and the case index stores exactly what they typed. These three strings came back on the first page of our BNS 318 search on 3 November 2026:

• Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), 1860 | Section BNs 318: a BNS section filed under the IPC heading.
• Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), 1973 | Sections 223of, BNS, 318, of, BNSS: a BNS offence and a BNSS section, run together under the old CrPC heading.
• Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 | Section sec138 &142 BNS 318: a cheque complaint that also invokes BNS 318.

A strict filter on the act name would miss the first two. A free-text search for BNS 318 finds all three, which is why the section pages link to searches in several spellings. When the count matters, try the variants yourself: section 318 BNS, bns 318(4), IPC 420, 420 IPC. Our IPC to BNS guide for trial courts lists the forty pairs you will meet most often.

How do I read the case page and get back to the provision?

The case page gives you parties, court, status, hearings and the list of orders; each order opens with its text and an AI summary that names the provisions it cites. From there you check every cited provision on IndiaCode before you rely on it.

Read the order type in the list: a Record of Proceedings is usually a short daily order, a Judgment is the reasoned decision. Read the bench line, because strength of bench decides how much weight a decision carries in your court. Read the date of the judgment against the amendment footnotes on the section page; the Section 142(2) example above shows why. And read the earlier-court details, which tell you which High Court order was under appeal and whether you should pull that one too.

The AI summary is a reading aid. It gives you the outcome, the reasoning and the provisions in a form you can scan in a minute, but it is not the judgment. Quote the order, never the summary. If you need the full text in a file, the guide to downloading court orders covers PDFs and text.

On the developer side, the same loop is available as data. The Case Detail endpoint returns courtCaseData.provisions with each citation’s act as written, its act key, unit, number and an IndiaCode URL, at no extra charge. Where a record has no parsed citations, which is common today, you fall back to the act and section string and resolve it yourself. Our sibling post on attaching the statute to every case shows that pipeline end to end.

Is there a faster route for power users and developers?

Yes: Case Search v2 on the eCourtsIndia API filters by statute path, and the eCourtsIndia MCP server lets an AI assistant read the section, map it and search cases in one conversation.

curl -G "https://webapi.ecourtsindia.com/api/partner/v2/search" \
  --data-urlencode "provisionPaths=1881/26|s|138" \
  --data-urlencode "provisionPaths=1860/45|s|420" \
  --data-urlencode "provisionPaths=2023/45|s|318" \
  --data-urlencode "courtLevels=HC" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer eci_live_your_token_here"

On the MCP server at mcp.ecourtsindia.com, the statute tools lookup_provision, map_provision and lookup_offence sit beside search_cases, so a prompt such as “read BNS 318, give me the old IPC number, then find Allahabad High Court orders on both since 2023” runs as a few tool calls rather than a dozen browser tabs. Statute calls cost ₹0.05 at the base rate and ₹0.15 on Pay As You Go, the same as the API. New accounts get ₹200 of free credits, no card needed.

What should a junior check before citing a judgment found this way?

Read the order itself, check the date against the amendments, check the bench, and check that a later decision has not overruled it. A list on a section page is a starting point for research, not the end of it.

1. Read the judgment, not the note. The holding notes on IndiaCode are extracted by eCourtsIndia and the page itself says to read the order before relying on it.
2. Check later amendments. Compare the judgment date with the footnotes on the section page. Section 142(2) of the NI Act is the textbook example.
3. Check whether it was overruled or referred. MSR Leathers exists because a larger Bench overruled Sadanandan Bhadran. Search the case name in the index and read what came after.
4. Check which code it construed. A 2009 judgment on cheating construed IPC 420. Its reasoning may carry over to BNS 318, but say so in terms, and cite the mapping as a research aid, not an authority.
5. Check the label against your court. Binding and Persuasive are eCourtsIndia’s labels, not a ruling on precedent; even some Supreme Court entries on the BNS 318 page are marked Persuasive. Whether a decision binds your court depends on your court, the bench strength and later law.
6. Check the text against the Gazette. IndiaCode is a reading copy. For anything you file, the Gazette text governs.

What this does not tell you

Sources and method

• Section text, classification and equivalents for NI Act 138, 141 and 142, BNS 318 and IPC 420: eCourtsIndia MCP lookup_provision, lookup_provisions and map_provision, run 3 November 2026.
• Related and citing judgment lists, holding notes and search links: IndiaCode NI Act Section 138 and IndiaCode BNS Section 318, read 3 November 2026.
• Search counts for BNS 318, IPC 420 and the NI Act 138 phrase search, and the three court strings: eCourtsIndia MCP search_cases, run 3 November 2026.
• Case record and judgment text for MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan (CNR SCIN010047712001): eCourtsIndia MCP get_case_details, get_order_ai_analysis and lookup_case_provisions, run 3 November 2026.
• Case Search v2 parameters, Case Detail provisions and prices: eCourtsIndia API docs and pricing page, read 3 November 2026.
• Government sources: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), maintained by the Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, and the e-Gazette (egazette.gov.in), the authoritative text, referenced 3 November 2026.

Frequently asked questions