Hanuman Prasad And Others v. Union of India through Income Tax Officer Jaunpur

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Hanuman Prasad and others brought Application under section 482 Cr.P.C.9897/2002 against the Union of India through the Income Tax Officer, Jaunpur. On the revised call, nobody appeared to press the application; counsel holding brief for the Union was present.

Source: PDF p.1

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

Given the application’s pendency since 2002 and non-appearance, the Court inferred that the cause no longer survived or the matter had otherwise become infructuous. The order does not identify the underlying complaint, alleged offence or requested substantive relief.

Source: PDF p.1

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The application was dismissed on 9 September 2019 on that basis.

Source: PDF p.1

4. OUTCOME

Procedural dismissal of the applicants’ proceeding. No prosecution was quashed, no acquittal or conviction was recorded, and no tax liability was decided by this order.

Source: PDF p.1

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

Section482 identifies the procedural jurisdiction, not a tax offence

The section in the title belongs to the Code of Criminal Procedure. It must not be indexed as an Income-tax Act provision or used to infer an unstated prosecution section. The Income Tax Officer’s role in the title alone does not supply the missing allegations or tax year.

Source: PDF p.1

The Court inferred infructuousness from the procedural circumstances

The order links age and non-appearance with an apparently non-surviving cause. It does not investigate the underlying allegations or make a factual exoneration. Reporting it as a successful criminal challenge would reverse the operative dismissal of the application.

Source: PDF p.1

Preserve the narrow outcome and the source limits

No party appeared to press the applicants’ case, while Union counsel was present. The dismissal is the only established relief; the PDF includes no express recall liberty or directions about trial proceedings. The abbreviated parties and exact docket should be retained without adding a criminal-case number from conjecture.

Source: PDF p.1