This is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified advocate.
Notable Judgments — June 2025
Pramod Swarup Agarwal vs Prin. Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Lucknow
| Case No. | Writ Tax No. 30 of 2025 (with Writ Tax No. 31 of 2025) |
| Date | 3 June 2025 |
| Bench | Hon’ble Justice Rajan Roy, Hon’ble Justice Om Prakash Shukla |
| Subject | Validity of Income Tax Search Operations under Section 132 |
In a notable ruling, the Division Bench quashed the warrant of authorization and the search operations conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that the satisfaction note contained no information referable to Section 132(1)(b), rendering the jurisdictional prerequisites “woefully absent.” The court further held that post-search information cannot justify pre-search actions, and that a notice issued under Section 131(1A) after the search was completed was invalid. The petitioners were elderly promoter shareholders who had sold shares via an IPO in 2021.
Takeaway: Income tax search operations under Section 132 must be founded on valid “reason to believe” recorded prior to the search. Courts will quash searches where the satisfaction note lacks the requisite jurisdictional basis, regardless of information gathered after the search.
Deepak Singh @ Subham Singh vs State of U.P.
| Case No. | Application U/S 482 No. 491 of 2025 |
| Citation | 2025:AHC-LKO:35433 |
| Date | 13 June 2025 |
| Bench | Hon’ble Justice Saurabh Lavania |
| Subject | Summoning under Section 319 CrPC — Second Application Maintainability |
The applicant challenged a summoning order passed under Section 319 CrPC after a second application was filed by the complainant, the first application having been dismissed “as not pressed.” The court analysed Supreme Court precedent including Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) and Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2019), and held that second applications under Section 319 remain maintainable when new evidence emerges during trial. The court distinguished between dismissal “as not pressed” and merit-based dismissals, and emphasised that injured witnesses’ statements carry greater evidentiary value.
Takeaway: The power under Section 319 CrPC to summon additional accused can be exercised more than once during a trial if fresh evidence warrants it. A prior withdrawal of an application does not bar a subsequent application based on new evidence recorded during trial.
Syed Mohammad Seraj Ali vs State of U.P.
| Case No. | Application U/S 482 No. 4746 of 2025 |
| Citation | 2025:AHC-LKO:34732 |
| Date | 5 June 2025 |
| Bench | Hon’ble Justice Abdul Moin |
| Subject | Passport NOC — Pending Criminal Proceedings |
The petitioner sought to quash orders rejecting his request for a No Objection Certificate for passport issuance despite pending criminal proceedings. The court allowed the petition, finding that the trial court had rejected the application “without even referring to” the governing Ministry of External Affairs Office Memorandums, which constituted a patent non-application of mind. The court held that these procedural guidelines are mandatory and that trial courts must exercise informed discretion when deciding NOC applications for passport purposes.
Takeaway: Trial courts deciding applications for passport NOC in pending criminal cases must consider and apply the relevant MEA guidelines and Office Memorandums. Mechanical rejection without reference to governing circulars amounts to non-application of mind and is liable to be set aside.
State of U.P. vs Sushil Kumar And 4 Others
| Case No. | Special Appeal Defective No. 256 of 2025 |
| Citation | 2025:AHC-LKO:35095-DB |
| Date | 10 June 2025 |
| Bench | Hon’ble Justice Saurabh Lavania, Hon’ble Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi |
| Subject | Condonation of Delay — Government Departments |
The State challenged a prior order directing it to pay daily-wage workers the minimum pay scale. The Division Bench dismissed the special appeal as time-barred, the appeal having been filed 572 days late. The court held that government departments cannot claim blanket exemptions from limitation periods without satisfactory justification, and that modern technology negates traditional bureaucratic delay excuses.
Takeaway: Government departments are held to the same standards of diligence as private litigants when it comes to limitation periods. Unexplained delays of over a year, even by the State, will not be condoned without compelling reasons.
Maiku And Another vs State of U.P.
| Case No. | Criminal Appeal No. 2025 of 2006 |
| Citation | 2025:AHC-LKO:35108 |
| Date | 10 June 2025 |
| Bench | Hon’ble Justice Rajeev Singh |
| Subject | Probation of Offenders — SC/ST Act Conviction |
The appeal challenged convictions under the IPC and the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. While upholding the conviction, the court modified the sentence by granting probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, given the 25-year gap since the offence and the absence of prior criminal record. The appellant was directed to furnish sureties and maintain good behaviour for one year. The court observed that probation legislation represents the “modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology.”
Takeaway: Courts may exercise discretion to grant probation even in cases involving serious charges, particularly where a long period has elapsed since the offence and the accused has no prior criminal record. The reformative object of the Probation of Offenders Act is given due weight.
Union of India vs Govind Narain Mishra
| Case No. | Writ-A No. 6603 of 2025 |
| Citation | 2025:AHC-LKO:35113-DB |
| Date | 10 June 2025 |
| Bench | Hon’ble Justice Saurabh Lavania, Hon’ble Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi |
| Subject | Delay and Laches — Challenge to Tribunal Order |
The Union of India challenged a Central Administrative Tribunal order that had quashed disciplinary proceedings against a retired postal employee. The Division Bench dismissed the petition on the ground that it was filed 363 days late without satisfactory explanation. The court held that delay and laches are relevant factors in the exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and that extraordinary relief cannot be granted to parties who approach courts belatedly.
Takeaway: Government departments challenging tribunal orders must act promptly. Unexplained delays in filing writ petitions, even by the Union of India, are fatal to the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Useful Resources
For full text of judgments and orders, readers may refer to:
- Indian Kanoon — Free legal database for published judgments
- Allahabad High Court Official Website — Daily orders, cause lists, and circulars
- eCourts India — Case status and court orders
Disclaimer: The information provided above is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, solicitation, or advertisement. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to their circumstances. The summaries above are based on publicly available information from Indian Kanoon and official court records.