Supreme Court of India laid down law regarding framework for compromise /agreements even in cases of offences which are not permissible to be compounded under section 320 CRPC can be compromised and quashed. It was later upheld in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab 2012 (10) SCC 303 which became a landmark precedent for quashing of FIR in Non compoundable cases due to compromise among the parties.

Requisite Ingredients to attract section 307 IPC reiterated by Supreme Court of India and further re-appreciated the evidence because prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and concurrent conviction orders passed by High court and sessions court, was quashed and set aside under Section-307/34 IPC & read with Section- 27 of Arms Act.

Criminal Procedure Code: Section 309- Recording of evidence- The High Court held that unless trial court has cogent and strong reasons, the trial court cannot adjourn the examination of witnesses who are in attendance beyond the next working day. The trial proceedings were quashed on delay of trial as not a single witness examined in a period of 13 years which leads to violation of article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Cancellation of Bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C. by Supreme Court of India observing non-application of mind by the High Court. The Supreme Court set aside the Bail considering the nature of accusation, the severity of punishment in case of conviction, the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of court in support of the charge.

Interpretation of Statue of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 by the Supreme Court of India and held as under:-

(i) ‘Light motor vehicle’ as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.

(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.

(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” in section 10(2)(h) with expression ‘transport vehicle’ as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.

(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE- Section 91 and Section 102 (3)- The Madras High Court reaffirmed that in the summons issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C, the investigation officer summons the person to produce the document or other things. On the summons issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C, bank account cannot be freezed. Furthermore for freezing of bank accounts, the concerned police officer or investigating authority is required comply with the procedure as contemplated under Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C which requires to report about the seizure of property or freezing of any bank account to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.