KAMLESH HARILAL GORADIA vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET
ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 33697 of 2016
With
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 33697 of 2016
With
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 33697 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================
KAMLESH HARILAL GORADIA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================
Appearance:
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 21/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the
Page 1 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C."), the petitioner, a
retired Deputy Collector (Class-I), has prayed for quashing and
setting aside First Information Report being C.R. No. I-1 of 2015
registered with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Police Station,
Ahmedabad, for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w.
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("P.C.
Act"), as well as the consequential Charge-sheet bearing No.
ACB/KPT/AVD/970/2024 and the resultant criminal proceedings
in Special ACB Case No. 17/2021 pending before the learned
Special Judge (ACB), Ahmedabad.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a direct recruit Mamlatdar on
10.02.1986, subsequently promoted to the rank of Deputy Collector
(Class-I), and superannuated from public service on 28.02.2015.
3. On 06.01.2015, the impugned FIR was registered alleging that
during the check period running from 01.01.2000 to 31.12.2008 (a
period of 9 years), the petitioner, while serving as a public servant,
amassed assets disproportionate to his known, lawful sources of
income to the extent of Rs.1,04,16,880/- (213.08%).
4. Following an extensive investigation, a final report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Charge-sheet) was filed before the competent
court, wherein the investigating agency recalculated the financial
figures based on Statements A to D. As per the Charge-sheet, the
petitioner’s assets stood at Rs.17,92,495/- prior to the check period
Page 2 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
and rose to Rs.2,93,94,113/- at the close of the check period. After
setting off credited income of Rs.50,94,739/- against expenditure of
Rs.7,19,195/-, the alleged disproportionate assets were determined
to be Rs.2,32,26,074/- (455.88%). For the sake of convenience, facts
as narrated in FIR, in verbatim, are reproduced:
“Date: 1.1.2015
I, N. M. Sindhi, Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Field
Mehsana Unit, Mehsana.
The facts of the complaint on behalf of the Government are that I
am serving as a Police Inspector in the Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Field Mehsana Unit, Mehsana.
As Police Inspector, ACB Mehsana, my jurisdiction covers the
entire area of Mehsana, Gandhinagar, Sabarkantha, and Aravalli
Districts. My duties involve taking legal action under the
Prevention of Corruption Act and performing duties entrusted to
me by the senior officers of the Bureau.
By written Order No. TAPAS/G/VAPI/01/2013/2959 dated
21.09.2013 from the Chief Police Officer and Director, Anti-
Corruption Bureau, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, we received orders
stating that Mr. Kamleshbhai Haribhai Goradiya, Deputy
Collector Class-1, Headquarters Vyara, Dist. Tapi, currently
serving as Deputy Collector, Election Branch, Botad, as a public
servant, possesses property disproportionate to his known legal
sources of income, amounting to approximately Rs.1,04,16,880/-
(Rupees One Crore Four Lakh Sixteen Thousand Eight Hundred
Eighty only). Since it prima facie appears that the alleged public
servant has acquired disproportionate assets in his name and in the
names of his family members, an order was issued under Order No.
TAPAS/G/TAPI/01/2013/3754 dated 31.12.14 by the Police
Officer and Director, A.C.B., Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, to
register an offense under Section 13(1)(e) r/w. Section 13(2) of the
Page 3 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Mr. Kamleshbhai Haribhai Goradiya, Deputy Collector Class-1,
Headquarters Vyara, Dist. Tapi, currently Deputy Collector,
Election Branch, Botad, has legal salary ownership and other
sources of income. His salary income and the movable/immovable
assets and expenditure acquired/incurred in his name, prima facie,
are as follows:
In the year 2005, the accused acquired land in his name and in the
names of his family members at Village: Visoj, Taluka: Kadi, for
Rs.1,90,000/- at Mehsana under Survey Nos. 478, 479, 480, 481,
total area 2482–487/2.
Purchased 2.18.53 Hectares, Are, and Guntha, for which land
purchase consideration was paid by cheque amounting to
Rs.1,75,000/- and stamp paper worth Rs.15,000/- was used,
totalling a payment of Rs.1,90,000/-.
In the year 2008, while serving at Porbandar, the accused
purchased 135 sq. meters of land out of Revenue Survey No.
188/1/P/1 at Village: Chhaya, Taluka & District: Porbandar, as a
government servant under the order of the Collector, Porbandar, in
his name for Rs.25,798/-.
The accused invested Rs.68,54,207/- in his name and in the names
of his family members in IDBI Flexi Bonds, UTI, Bank of India
Infotech, ICICI Tax Saving Bond, HDFC Bank Bond, Franklin
Templeton Investment Bond, Sundaram Mutual Fund, SBI
Mutual Fund, and Reliance Mutual Fund.
The accused transferred Rs.24,00,000/- from his wife's ICICI Bank
Account No. 0067010702 to the Ahmedabad Post Office and
deposited Rs.18,00,000/- in the Post Office at Chembur, Mumbai,
along with Rs.6,00,000/- deposited, making total investments in
the Post Office amounting to Rs.24,00,000/-.
In 2005, the accused purchased a TVS Company Scooty from
Ahmedabad for Rs.25,000/- in his wife's name from TVS Motors
Page 4 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
Ltd.
On 07.02.2005, from Ambika Smruti Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd., Division-1 22,19,003/-, behind Rajpath Club,
Bodakdev, Ahmedabad, a plot measuring 1500 sq. meters for 24
Shaswat Bungalows was purchased in his wife's name for
Rs.6,00,000/-, for which stamp duty on document of Rs.39,053/-
was paid by the accused. Thereafter, as per a construction
agreement dated 01.09.2006, the accused paid Rs.10,74,000/- to
Ambika Smruti Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Division-1 for
constructing a house. After construction, since the property was in
his wife's name, it was transferred to his name via a gift deed dated
21.10.2008. On the basis of this gift deed, the house was registered
at the Sub-Registrar Office, Memnagar, Ahmedabad with
government jantry value where stamp duty of Rs.4,81,500/- and
registrar fees of Rs.98,450/- were paid by the accused.
Thus, after initially purchasing the above-mentioned house in his
wife's name and subsequently transferring it to his name via gift
deed, total investment made by the accused was Rs.22,19,003/-.
In 1996, at Naroda G.I.D.C., the accused purchased Plot No. 25/7
and took necessary steps to establish a factory named Maruti
Industries on said plot. However, as the plot land was agricultural,
steps were taken to convert it to industrial use. But since
government sanction was not granted, no factory was built on said
plot. Total amount paid in different years towards plot purchase
was Rs.20,05,329/-. However, out of total payments, the accused
paid Rs.5,80,912/- by cheque during the check period on
03.02.2000. Thus, during the check period, the accused incurred
investment expenditure of Rs.5,80,912/-.
Total Rs.1,22,94,920/-
Thus, according to the above details, the accused made investments
in immovable and movable assets in his name amounting to
Rs.1,22,94,920/-.
Page 5 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
(No.) Expense Item Amount (Rs.)
(1) Electricity Bill 5,40,000/-
(2) Telephone / Cellphone Expenses 1,08,000/-
(3) Children's Education Expenses 10,00,000/-
(4) Travel / Tour Expenses 80,000/-
(5) Vehicle Maintenance Expenses 24,000/-
(6) House / Vehicle Taxes, etc. 1,08,000/-
(7) Other Expenses (Gas Expenses) 21,600/-
(8) House (Flat) Maintenance Expenses 1,08,000/-
(9) Purchase of Gold (2003) 10,21,167/-
Total Expenditure 30,10,567/-
Salary income of the accused from January 2000 to December 2008
was Rs.24,71,271/-. After deducting fixed deductions of
Rs.10,15,541/- from salary, the net income was Rs.14,55,730/-.
Out of this net income, calculating household expenditure at a
minimum rate of 30% amounting to Rs.4,36,719/-, the probable
savings remain at Rs.10,19,011/-.
In the Income Tax returns filed by the accused and his wife from
2006 to 2008, the accused's wife showed agricultural income of
Rs.6,89,640/-, and the accused showed his income as Rs.3,08,726/-
in his returns for 2007–08. Thus, total agricultural income was
considered as Rs.9,98,366/-. After deducting 40% agricultural
expenses amounting to Rs.3,99,346/-, net agricultural income
according to Income Tax returns was Rs.5,99,020/-.
Additionally, investment made in 3i Infotech in the name of the
accused and his wife from 1999 to 2003 matured between 2004 and
2006, generating total income of Rs.1,66,876/-.
Page 6 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
Furthermore, in 2006, the accused sold 1990 grams of gold held by
him to Maruti Bullion, Ahmedabad, generating income of
Rs.16,11,900/-. The accused also withdrew Rs.14,92,000/- from his
G.P.F. Account between 2004 and 2008, which was received as
income.
Thus, total net income from salary savings (Rs.10,19,011/-),
agricultural income (Rs.5,99,020/-), maturity of investments
(Rs.1,66,876/-), sale of gold (Rs.16,11,900/-), and G.P.F.
withdrawals (Rs.14,92,000/-) amounts to Rs.48,88,807/-.
During the period from 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2008, accused Mr.
Kamleshbhai Haribhai Goradiya, Deputy Collector Class-1,
Headquarters Vyara, Dist. Tapi, currently Deputy Collector,
Election Branch, Botad, incurred expenditure and investment
expenses of Rs.30,10,367/- + Rs.1,22,94,920/- = Rs.1,53,05,687/-.
Whereas during this period, his total probable savings including
salary and other income were Rs.48,88,807/-. Therefore,
investment/expenditure exceeds income by Rs.1,04,16,880/-, which
is considered disproportionate investment/expenditure by the
accused.
Apart from this, accused Mr. Kamleshbhai Haribhai Goradiya,
Deputy Collector, Class-1, Headquarters Vyara, Dist. Tapi,
currently Deputy Collector, Election Branch, Botad, has apparent
expenses such as investments made in banks, post offices, private
firms, gold/silver ornaments, and financial institutions like L.I.C.,
etc., as well as shares, vehicle maintenance expenses,
electricity/telephone bills, house tax, vehicle tax, income tax, and
other taxes paid, purchase of electrical appliances and furniture,
educational expenses, and donations/gifts/expenses given on social
occasions, along with details of other investment expenses. Upon
receiving these details, the figure of investment expenditure is
likely to increase significantly. Furthermore, detailed evaluation of
immovable properties, fixed furniture, raw materials, etc., is also
likely to increase the investment expenditure figure.
Moreover, there is a possibility of investments found in other
named/benami properties, and in this manner,
Page 7 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
investment/expenditure by the accused is likely to increase further.
Looking at the above details, accused Kamleshbhai Haribhai
Goradiya, Deputy Collector Class-1, Headquarters Vyara, Dist.
Tapi, currently Deputy Collector, Election Branch, Botad, while
discharging duties as a public servant from 10.02.1986 till date,
indulged in corrupt practices, misused his official position,
committed criminal misconduct, illegally acquired money for
personal gain, and prima facie made disproportionate
investments/expenditure amounting to Rs.1,04,16,880/- (Rupees
One Crore Four Lakh Sixteen Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty
only) out of such money. Since he has committed an offense
punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w. Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, my complaint is to take lawful
action against him.
My witnesses are those who turn up during investigation and
documentary evidence recovered during investigation. Hence, the
facts of my complaint are correct and true.
(N. M. Sindhi),
Police Inspector, A.C.B. Field Mehsana Unit.”
5. Learned Advocate Mr. B M.Mangukia has argued at length
and has taken to various statements, accounts as well as affidavits
of witness and statements forming part of the Charge-sheet. The
crux of arguments of learned advocate Mr. B M. Mangukia is to
the following effect:
5.1. Background & Profile of the Petitioner:
5.1.1 Service Profile: The petitioner, Mr. Kamleshbhai Haribhai
Goradiya, was appointed as a direct recruit Mamlatdar on
Page 8 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
10.02.1986. He subsequently served as Deputy Collector (Class-1)
and retired from service on 28.02.2015, currently receiving a
monthly pension of approximately Rs.39,000/-.
5.1.2 Family & Matrimonial Relations: The petitioner married his
wife (Beenaben) in 1991, with whom he has three children: Dimple
(unmarried, CS student), Ashuta (unmarried, M.A. student), and
Parthiv (son). On account of marital disputes, the petitioner and
his wife have lived separately since the year 2000 as per the say of
wife herself.
5.1.3 Family Responsibilities : The petitioner currently resides
with and supports his 93-year-old mother (Girijaben) and two
elderly sisters—Hansaben (69, divorcee) and Neelaben (62,
unmarried).
5.2 History of Malicious & Serial Litigations by the Estranged
Wife:
The petitioner contends that the present FIR is an offshoot of a
deliberate pattern of harassment, coercion, and "arm-twisting"
orchestrated by his estranged wife to tarnish his image as a public
servant and compel him and his family to yield to her demands:
5.2.1 Matrimonial & Civil Proceedings:
a) Filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 492 of 2009 in the
Page 9 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
Family Court, Ahmedabad.
b) Filed Special Civil Suit No. 144 of 2009 seeking
cancellation of the gift deed and injunction regarding the
residential property at Shaswat Bungalows.
5.2.2 Cruelty Complaint & 'B' Summary Report:
a) Lodged FIR C.R. No. I-9 of 2011 (under Sections 498A,
323, 114 IPC) against the petitioner and his family members.
b) Outcome : The Joint Police Commissioner (Crime
Branch, Ahmedabad) approved a Class 'B' Summary draft
report (dated 18.07.2011 / 21.07.2011), finding that the
complaint was false, frivolous, and lodged maliciously to
harass the petitioner and his family. The report also noted
that the complainant was residing separately to pursue illicit
relations.
5.2.3 Domestic Violence & Maintenance Cases:
a) Filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 1538 of 2010
under the Domestic Violence Act. Maintenance awarded
initially at Rs.23,000/-, reduced on appeal to Rs.16,000/-,
and subsequently modified in Special Civil Application No.
586 of 2011 back to Rs.23,000/- per month.
Page 10 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
5.2.4 Forgery Allegations (Satellite Police Station):
a) Lodged FIR C.R. No. I-69 of 2016 (under IPC Sections
420, 464, 467, 468, 472) alleging fraudulent opening of a joint
bank account. The petitioner was granted regular bail.
5.2.5 High-Handed Dispossession & Threat:
a) Immediately following the petitioner's arrest on
14.06.2016 in the aforementioned FIR, the complainant wife
along with associates forcibly took illegal possession of the
petitioner's residential bungalow (House No. 24, Shaswat
Bungalows, Bodakdev), locked it, stationed security guards,
and physically threatened/assaulted the petitioner when he
attempted to enter his own home.
5.2.6 Land Forgery Allegations (Kadi Police Station):
a) Lodged FIR C.R. No. I-147 of 2016 alleging land
forgery at Village: Vidaj. The petitioner was granted
anticipatory bail.
b) High Court Stay : In Criminal Misc. Application No.
31302 of 2016 (Coram: J.B. Pardiwala, J.), the Hon'ble High
Court vide order dated 05.12.2016 stayed further
investigation into the said FIR.
Page 11 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
6. Substantive Legal & Factual Grounds against ACB FIR
(C.R. No. I-1/2015):
6.1 The petitioner seeks quashing of C.R. No. I-1 of 2015 (and the
consequential Charge-sheet / Special ACB Case No. 17/2021) on
the following grounds:
6.1.1 Selective Fixation of the Check Period:
a) The Investigating Officer (I.O.) arbitrarily fixed the
"check period" from 01.01.2000 to 31.12.2008 (9 years).
b) The petitioner was appointed as a direct recruit
Mamlatdar on 10.02.1986. The I.O. completely ignored and
omitted the petitioner's legitimate accumulated income and
savings earned over nearly 14 years of prior public service
(10.02.1986 to 31.12.1999). Selecting a piecemeal period rather
than evaluating the entire tenure of service is impermissible
and legally unsustainable.
6.1.2 Wrongful Inclusion of Independent Income & Assets of
the Estranged Wife :
a) In her foundational application dated 25.06.2013, the
wife explicitly admitted that she has been residing separately
since the year 2000 with her three children and bearing all
Page 12 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
their expenses independently.
b) Thus, she was not dependent on the petitioner from
2000 onwards. Imputing and tagging the independent
investments, assets, and financial transactions made by the
wife, her parents (father and mother), and her family as the
petitioner's income/assets is wholly baseless and contrary to
the prosecution's own documentary record.
6.1.3 Disregard of Direct Affidavit Evidence regarding Third-
Party Gifts:
a) The I.O. ignored sworn affidavits executed by
independent third parties confirming voluntary monetary
gifts given out of love and affection to the wife and children:
i) Mr. Chintan Hiren Patel: Swore affidavits
(30.03.2004 and 26.03.2004) verifying gifts of Rs.1 Lakh
to Beenaben, Rs.1.50 lakh to daughter Dimple, and Rs.1
Lakh to son Paritosh.
ii) Ramilaben Hiren Patel & Geetaben: Swore
affidavits (26.03.2004) confirming monetary gifts given
to Beenaben and the children.
iii) Patel Hiren: Swore an affidavit confirming gifts
Page 13 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
of Rs.50,000/- to Asuna, Rs.1.50 lakh to Beenaben, and
Rs.1 Lakh to Paritosh.
iv) Since these affidavits form part of the
prosecution's own investigation record, the
prosecution cannot resile from its own evidence.
6.1.4 Wrongful Inclusion of Unrelated Loans & Independent
Incomes of Major Sisters:
a) Unsubstantiated Loan Tagging: Loans legitimately
obtained by the petitioner from friends and relatives were
treated as the petitioner's own undisclosed income disguised
as gifts, purely on the basis of assumptions, surmises, and
conjectures of the I.O. without any contrary evidence.
b) Independent Incomes of Sisters: The I.O. tagged the
income and investments of the petitioner's two sisters
(Hansaben and Neelaben) as the petitioner's income. Both
sisters are adult, major, and independent individuals with
their own legal sources of income. Tagging their
independent assets on mere suspicion in the absence of
material on record is legally unsustainable.
6.1.5 Flawed Mutual Fund Calculations & Recycling of Funds:
Page 14 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
a) UTI & Mutual Fund Re-investments:
i) The prosecution alleged UTI Mutual Fund
investments totalling Rs.47,27,828/-.
ii) The I.O. repeatedly counted the recycling and re-
investment of the same underlying funds/matured
proceeds. For example, an alleged investment of Rs.4
lakh on 05.12.2007 was never made, reducing actual
original investments to Rs.27 lakh. Failing to give
credit for fund rotation artificially inflated the asset
tally.
b) Reliance Mutual Funds Contradictions:
i) The I.O. made contradictory assertions alleging
an investment of Rs.47 lakh versus an actual
investment of Rs.30 lakh, demonstrating a casual and
careless approach.
c) Property Valuation & Unilateral Banakhats:
i) Regarding Naroda G.I.D.C. Plot No. 25/7/B,
independent Banakhats (Agreements to Sell) executed
unilaterally by the complainant wife with third parties
(Mr. Gokulesh Patel and Tamanna Developers) were
Page 15 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
wrongly entangled into the petitioner's asset
calculations.
7. Legal Submissions under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
7.1 Section 13(1)(e) r/w. Section 13(2) requires proof that a
public servant (or any person on his behalf) is in possession of
pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known
sources of income which cannot be satisfactorily accounted for.
7.2 None of the essential ingredients of Sections 13(1)(e) and
13(2) are satisfied in this case. When the arbitrarily omitted past
service income, recycled investments, third-party gifts backed by
affidavits, legitimate loans, and independent assets of the
estranged wife and major sisters are properly credited/excluded,
no disproportionate assets remain.
7.3 The FIR is an offshoot of personal malice lodged with
ulterior motives to settle private scores, constituting a gross abuse
of the process of law and Court.
7.4 Investigation & Delay : The FIR was registered on
06.01.2015 for the check period 01.01.2000 to 31.12.2008. The
accused was arrested on 28.10.2020, and the final report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed thereafter in 2020—a delay of nearly
Page 16 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
six years in an investigation resting entirely on documentary
evidence.
7.5 Contradictory Computations (FIR vs. Charge-Sheet):
7.5.1 FIR Computation: Alleges lawful income of Rs.48,86,807/-
against investment/expenditure of Rs.1,53,05,687/-, yielding
disproportionate assets of Rs.1,04,18,880/- (213.08%).
7.5.2 Charge-Sheet Computation :
a) Annexure-A (Assets before check period):
Rs.17,92,495/-.
b) Annexure-B (Assets at the end of check period):
Rs.2,93,94,113/-.
c) Annexure-C (Income credited): Rs.50,94,739/-.
d) Annexure-D (Expenditure): Rs.7,19,195/-.
e) Investments during check period (B minus A):
Rs.2,76,01,618/-.
f) Savings (C minus D): Rs.43,75,544/-.
g) Disproportionate Assets: Rs.2,32,26,074/- (455.88%).
7.5.3 Arbitrary Doubling : The alleged disproportion more than
doubled between the FIR and Charge-sheet for the exact same
check period, proving that the figures are conjectural estimates
arrived at by choice of accounting method rather than factual
Page 17 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
determination.
8. ANALYSIS OF INCOME COMPUTATION
(STATEMENT-C):
8.1.1 The Investigating Officer (I.O.) credited only six heads of
income, totalling Rs.50,94,739/-:
Credited
Name /
Head of Income (Statement-C)
Amount
Person
(Rs.)
Salary Savings (Gross salary
Rs.24,71,271 less fixed deductions
Rs.10,15,541 = Rs.14,55,730; + D.A.
diff. Rs.7,466 = Rs.14,63,197; less 30%
notional household exp.)
Kamleshbhai
10,24,378/-
Goradiya
Kamleshbhai
G.P.F. Withdrawals (2004 to 2008) 14,92,000/-
Goradiya
Agricultural Income (Wife's returns
2006–08 Rs.6,89,640 less arbitrary 30%
farming exp. = Rs.4,82,748; + Accused
return A.Y. 2007–08 Rs.3,08,723)
Kamleshbhai
7,91,471/-
& Binaben
Maturity of 3i Infotech Investment
(1999)
Kamleshbhai
1,20,045/-
& Binaben
Kamleshbhai
Maturity of U.T.I. Mutual Fund (1995) 54,945/-
Goradiya
Sale of Gold (Redemption of India
Gold Bonds 1993/1998; ~1,986 gm
sold to Maruti Bullion)
Kamleshbhai
16,11,900/-
Goradiya
Page 18 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
Credited
Name /
Head of Income (Statement-C)
Amount
Person
(Rs.)
Total Income Credited 50,94,739/-
8.1.2 Fatal Omissions in Income Computation:
a) Refusal to Attribute Family Income: No independent
income whatsoever is attributed to the wife (Smt. Binaben)
beyond her IT returns (which were arbitrarily reduced by
30%), nor to the son (Paritosh), daughters, HUF, or relatives.
b) Asymmetrical Aggregation: While the I.O. refused to
credit the family's independent receipts, the I.O. aggregated
all assets standing in their names—including Binaben's
Franklin Templeton, Sundaram, Fidelity, and Reliance folios,
Central Bank/PNB Accounts, children's Kalupur Bank
accounts, HUF folios, and post-office deposits—against the
accused.
9. Treatment Of Sales Of Shares, Securities & Rotated Funds:
9.1 The Charge-sheet record itself reveals multiple redemption
and sale events where proceeds were rotated back into new
instruments, which the I.O. completely ignored on the income
side:
Page 19 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
a) 3i Infotech / ICICI Tax Saving Bonds: Investments
(1999–2003) matured between 2005 and 2008 receiving ~
Rs.2,05,100/- (Approx.); I.O. credited only Rs.1,20,045/- +
interest Rs.13,425/-.
b) IDBI Flexi bonds: Staged interest and principal
realizations during check period were ignored.
c) Franklin Templeton (6 Folios of Binaben): Aggregate
gross investments of Rs.24,50,000/- were counted as assets,
but the Rs.25,03,299/- received back on redemptions was
completely uncredited on the income side.
d) Sundaram Mutual Fund: Folio SBBNA was redeemed
at Rs.7,92,259/- and re-invested in the same folio within
months; total group realizations of Rs.15,85,283/78 were
omitted.
e) Fidelity Equity Fund: Binaben’s folios redeemed
Rs.2,15,293/- on 04.10.2005 plus further redemptions;
ignored as income.
f) UTI Mutual Fund: Periodic investments aggregating ~
Rs.31,00,000/- were counted as gross assets, but subsequent
redemptions/1995 maturity units (Rs.54,945/-) were barely
credited.
Page 20 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
g) Reliance Mutual Fund (Folio 40162399123): Gross
investments of Rs.31,00,000/- were counted, whereas
Statement-B itself records a net investment of only
Rs.20,00,000/- (reflecting Rs.11,00,000/- redeemed).
h) Government of India 8% Tax-Free Bonds (2003):
Periodic interest streams across Rs.27,84,000/- worth of
bonds were uncredited in Statement-C.
10. Cumulative Infirmities In Computation:
10.1 Double Counting of Rotated Funds: The formula DA = (B -
A) - (C-D) counts every gross purchase as a fresh asset while
ignoring redemption inflows, effectively counting rotated money 2
to 3 times. Once redemption inflows are set off, the gross
investment figure of Rs.2,76,01,618/- collapses.
10.2 Double Deduction of Household Expenses: A 30% notional
haircut was deducted upfront from gross salary in Statement-C,
and then actual household outgoings (electricity, education, travel,
municipal taxes) were debited again in Statement-D
(Rs.7,19,195/-).
10.3 Arbitrary Farming Haircut: A 30% reduction was applied to
declared agricultural income accepted by Income Tax authorities
without any supporting material.
Page 21 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
10.4 Exclusion of Family & HUF Money Trails: Refusal to credit
explained receipts (including Rs.53,07,007/- from Amreli relatives)
while aggregating their assets.
10.5 Omission of Accruals: Total omission of interest, dividend,
and maturity accruals on over Rs.27.84 lakh of GOI bonds and
mutual fund folios.
11. The Amreli Money Trail (Rs.53,07,007/-):
11.1 The prosecution’s own Charge-sheet documents explain the
receipt of funds from the accused's family in Amreli:
a) Trench 1 (Amreli Bank Accounts): Passbooks and
statements of Bharatbhai, Hetalben, Dakshaben,
Dalichandbhai, and Pushpaben Goradiya establish cash
deposits and substantial operational balances. Bharatbhai’s
signed statement confirms that family funds belonging to
him, his father Dalichandbhai, and mother Pushpaben were
pooled.
b) Trench 2 (Transfer to HUF & Binaben Folios): In 2007,
these family moneys were handed over for investment in
mutual funds under Smt. Binaben and Kamlesh Harilal
Goradiya HUF, supported by Powers of Attorney executed
by Dakshaben and Sonalben. The accused's statement
Page 22 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
quantifies these receipts at Rs.53,07,007/-.
c) Trench 3 (Destination Folios): Statement-B corroborates
that these funds went directly into UTI and Reliance
HUF/Binaben folios. The I.O. counted these destination
folios as unexplained assets of the accused while completely
ignoring the family's source statements and bank trail.
12. Crux of the Grounds For Quashing The Fir And Charge-
Sheet:
12.1 Arithmetical Collapse on Prosecution's Own Documents:
Taking the Charge-sheet at its highest, the computation fails on its
face once redemption inflows and fund rotation documented by
RTA replies (Book-4) are set off.
12.2 Disregard of Furnished Explanations: The I.O. failed to
consider the accused’s detailed statements (dated 02.10.2020,
08.10.2020, and 18.10.2020) and supporting documentary proof
(bank statements, POAs, gift affidavits) already forming part of the
Charge-sheet.
12.3 Illegality of Asymmetrical Aggregation: Aggregating assets
of the wife, children, HUF, sisters, and parents-in-law without
attributing their independent receipts or arraying them as
accused/co-conspirators vitiates the entire computation.
Page 23 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
12.4 Wild Discrepancy Betraying Non-Application of Mind: The
unexplained jump in alleged disproportion from 213% in the FIR
to 455% in the Charge-sheet for the exact same check period
demonstrates that the figures are purely conjectural.
12.5 Prejudicial Delay: Unexplained delay of nearly six years
between the FIR (2015) and Charge-sheet (2020) in a purely
document-based case causes severe prejudice.
13. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Rohan
Shah would submit that a strong prima-facie case is made out
against the petitioner. The details of calculations as canvassed can
be gone only during Trial and that too also by trial Court since this
Court is not to conduct Mini Trial at the stage of quashing which is
not permissible as per settled law.
14. It is further argued that the persons from whom the loan as
well as amount for investment is taken is in a particular period of
time and that even gifts received are in a particular period and that
the modus oprendi of the petitioner is reflected from the details
mentioned in the Charge-sheet. That all the transactions by the
persons form whom either loan is taken or is taken as loan have
deposited a huge sum of cash in equal instalments and then
transferred the said amount in the account of petitioner/wife and
that said amount is also given back in cash for which there is no
account. Thus, it is argued that when a person having a meagre
Page 24 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
salary has amassed huge amount of money which is unaccounted
and for which there is no explanation coming forth and that to also
does not inspire confidence is as much as the period of receipt of
amount from various persons are not so financially well to do so as
to lend such a huge amount either as loan or either as an amount
for investment on their behalf and that the petitioner name is also
reflecting in Bank account as nominee which reflects mens rea and
has thus argued to reject the petition.
15. It is further argued that merely because some investments
are in the name of wife or other relatives it cannot be said that the
said amount is earned by the petitioner and that the argument that
wife is living separately and maintaining his children and
therefore properties in the name of wife cannot be consider after
her living separately cannot be looked in to at the very nascent
stage since these aspects are defence and can be tested only after
full fledge trial where after examination and cross examination the
trial Court will test the same on the settled principles of Indian
Evidence Act and presumptions under the PC Act and hence
argued reject the petition.
16. The State placed heavy reliance upon the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in:
16.1 State of CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi & Anr.,
(2021) 18 SCC 135 ; and
Page 25 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
16.2 State of Chhattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh & Anr., (2023) 6
SCC 559 , to contend that where the Charge-sheet/FIR discloses
prima facie ingredients of disproportionate assets, the High Court
ought not to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
17. In response to the precedents cited by the State, learned
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that both Thommandru
Hannah Vijayalakshmi (supra) and Aman Kumar Singh (supra)
were rendered in the context of quashing an FIR at the preliminary
stage of investigation, where the investigating agency had not yet
evaluated the complete record. In the present case, the
investigation is complete, a full Charge-sheet comprising all
documentary evidence has been filed, and the patent arithmetical
absurdity and non-application of mind appear on the face of the
prosecution's own Charge-sheet documents without requiring any
external defence evidence.
18. ANALYSIS:
18.1 This Court has given meticulous consideration to the rival
submissions, the Charge-sheet compilation, and the settled legal
principles governing Section 482 Cr.P.C. Each contention raised by
the petitioner is dealt with below:
18.2 Contention 1: Matrimonial Malice, Serial Litigations & 'B'
Summary Report:
Page 26 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
18.2.1 Petitioner's Argument: The FIR is tainted with personal
malice arising out of marital discord, and prior complaints lodged
by the wife were found false.
18.2.2 Finding: It is a well-settled principle of criminal
jurisprudence, that personal malice or animus on the part of an
informant/complainant is irrelevant if the material gathered
during investigation independently discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence.
18.2.3 While matrimonial litigations and the filing of a 'B'
Summary in a Section 498A IPC case are matters of record, the
present prosecution is under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. Once the investigating agency conducted an independent
inquiry and placed objective documentary evidence on record
regarding financial transactions, bank deposits, and property
acquisitions, the initial motive of the informant recedes into the
background. Private malice cannot eclipse public accountability
under corruption law. Hence, this contention is rejected.
18.3 Contention 2: Arbitrary Fixation of Check Period (2000–
2008) :
18.3.1 Petitioner's Argument: The I.O. selected a piecemeal 9-year
check period, ignoring 14 years of prior public service (1986–1999)
and accumulated savings.
Page 27 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
18.3.2 Finding: The selection of a check period is within the lawful
domain of the investigating agency based on the period during
which maximum disproportionate acquisitions are suspected to
have occurred. In State of Maharashtra v. Pollonji Darabshaw
Mistry , reported in 1987 Supp SCC 379 , Apex Court held that the
choice of the period must necessarily be determined by the
allegations of fact on which the prosecution is founded and rests.
However, the period must be such as to enable a true and
comprehensive picture of the known sources of income and the
pecuniary resources and property in possession of by the public-
servant either by himself or through any other person on his
behalf, which are alleged to be so disproportionate. In the facts and
circumstances of a case, a ten year period cannot be said to be
incapable of yielding such a true and comprehensive picture.
18.3.3 If the petitioner asserts that he possessed accumulated
savings from his service prior to 01.01.2000, the burden lies
squarely upon him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to
establish the exact quantum of such prior savings brought forward
into the check period. This requires leading evidence before the
trial Court. The selection of a 9-year check period does not per se
vitiate the Charge-sheet.
19. Contention 3: Accounting Absurdities, Fund Rotations &
Non-Crediting of Redemption:
Page 28 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
19.1 Petitioner's Argument: The Charge-sheet counts gross
mutual fund purchases as assets without crediting redemption
inflows, leading to double/triple counting of rotated funds.
19.2 Finding: This Court acknowledges that the petitioner has
presented an elaborate working analysis regarding mutual fund
folios (Franklin Templeton, Sundaram, Reliance, UTI) and bond
redemptions. However, determining whether a specific financial
transaction represents "fresh investment" or "rotated capital" is a
matter of complex accounting evidence.
19.2.1 In State of CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi &
Anr. , (2021) 18 SCC 135 , the Supreme Court specifically held that
the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot perform
accounting reconciliation, adjust financial ledgers, or act as an
auditor.
19.2.3 Whether redemption proceeds were actually re-invested or
diverted elsewhere, and whether cash deposits prior to
transactions constituted rotated money or unaccounted cash, are
disputed factual issues. The learned APP has pointed out that
equal cash installments were deposited in bank accounts prior to
these investments. Therefore, setting off these amounts without
full cross-examination of bank officers and financial experts would
amount to conducting an impermissible "mini-trial."
Page 29 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
20. Contention 4: Asymmetrical Aggregation of Family/Sisters'
Assets vs. Exclusion of Income & Gifts:
20.1 Petitioner's Argument: Assets of the estranged wife, major
independent sisters, and in-laws were aggregated against the
petitioner, while their independent sources and third-party gift
affidavits were ignored.
20.2 Finding: Under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, the
prosecution is entitled to include assets held by a public servant or
by any person on his behalf . In P. Nallammal v. State, (1999) 6 SCC
559 , the Supreme Court held that the offense of acquiring and
possessing disproportionate assets under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC
Act can be abetted by non-public servants under Section 109 of the
IPC.
20.3 The defence that the wife lived separately, that sisters had
independent means, or that third parties provided genuine gifts
supported by affidavits are statutory defences under Section 13(1)
(e). Sworn affidavits executed by private individuals do not
automatically carry conclusive evidentiary weight without the
witnesses stepping into the witness box to face cross-examination.
The validity of these gifts and the financial capacity of the donors
must be tested at trial, though such affidavits are part of the
Charge-sheet.
Page 30 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
21. Contention 5: Double Haircut on Household Expenses:
21.1 Petitioner's Argument: Deducting a 30% haircut from salary
savings in Statement-C while debited actual household expenses
in Statement-D constitutes double deduction.
21.2 Finding: While Statement-C reflects a 30% deduction from
salary and Statement-D lists specific outgoings (electricity,
education, municipal taxes), this represents a conflict in
expenditure estimation methods. A perusal of the Charge-sheet
methodology reveals that the 30% notional deduction applied in
Statement-C represents a standardized baseline estimate for un-
receipted daily living expenses (such as food, kitchen running
costs, and daily cash outlays) where specific bills are unavailable.
Conversely, Statement-D specifically enumerates verified, bank-
transacted, or documentary expenditure items such as institutional
education fees, municipal property taxes, electricity utility
payments, and travel expenses. Whether the 30% standard haircut
in Statement-C was intended to subsume the specific municipal
and educational outgoings listed in Statement-D, or whether they
constitute two distinct categories of expenditure, is a pure question
of accounting fact and evidence. Alleged overlaps or disputes
regarding notional vs. actual expenditure estimates do not render
the Charge-sheet void ab initio. Instead, they constitute matters of
defence that the accused public servant can challenge during the
cross-examination of the Investigating Officer or during the
Page 31 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
framing of charge/trial before the Special Court.
22. Contention 6: Inapplicability of Apex Court Precedents at
the Charge-Sheet Stage:
22.1 Petitioner's Argument: Thommandru Hannah
Vijayalakshmi (supra) and Aman Kumar Singh (supra) involved
FIR quashing, whereas here a full Charge-sheet has been filed
therefore, facts of the present stands on different footing.
22.2 Finding: The distinction sought to be drawn by the
petitioner is legally untenable. The principle that the High Court
shall not conduct a mini-trial or appreciate evidence applies with
equal, if not greater, force after a Charge-sheet is filed.
22.2.1 Once the investigating agency compiles the final report
under Section 173 Cr.P.C. along with witness statements and
documentary evidence, the statutory venue for evaluating whether
a prima facie case exists is the trial Court (at the stage of
considering discharge under Section 227 or Section 239 Cr.P.C.).
The filing of a Charge-sheet does not widen the narrow portal of
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to permit a full-scale appreciation of evidence.
23. Contention 7: Uncredited Third-Party Gift Affidavits
(Chintan Patel, Ramilaben, Geetaben, Hiren Patel):
Page 32 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
23.1 Petitioner's Argument: The Investigating Officer completely
ignored sworn affidavits executed on 26.03.2004 and 30.03.2004 by
Chintan Hiren Patel, Ramilaben Hiren Patel, Geetaben, and Patel
Hiren confirming voluntary monetary gifts given out of love and
affection to Smt. Beenaben and the children.
23.2 Finding: Under Indian criminal jurisprudence, an affidavit
sworn by a private individual during a police investigation does
not possess statutory sanctity or conclusive evidentiary value
unless the maker of the affidavit enters the witness box during
trial, deposes on oath, and successfully withstands cross-
examination. The Apex Court in the case of Sudha Devi v.
M.P.Narayanan and Others reported in (1988) 3 Supreme Court
Cases 366 , observed that: “......Besides, affidavits are not included in
the definition of 'evidence' in S. 3 of the Evidence Act and can be used as
evidence only if for sufficient reason court passes an order under Order
XIX, Rules 1 or 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure...” Though, this
judgement is in reference to civil matter the law that affidavits are
not included in definition of evidence holds good even for criminal
matters.
23.2.1 Whether these gifts were genuine acts of love and affection
or colourable devices to mask unaccounted funds is a disputed
question of fact. The prosecution is not legally bound to accept
exculpatory affidavits collected during investigation without
testing their veracity at trial. Hence, non-crediting of private gift
Page 33 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
affidavits at the Charge-sheet stage does not justify quashing.
24. Contention 8: Micro-Breakdown of Mutual Fund
Redemptions & Bond Rotation:
24.1 Petitioner's Argument: Specific ledger-level reconciliation
demonstrates that gross investments (e.g., Rs.24.5 lakh in Franklin
Templeton, Rs.11 lakh redeemed in Reliance, and Sundaram
SBBNA redemptions of Rs.7.92 lakh) were counted twice without
crediting redemption inflows.
24.2 Finding: This submission represents a micro-level
accounting audit. As laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
State of CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, reported in
(2021) 18 SCC 135 , the High Court exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is neither an auditor nor an appellate
accounting forum.
24.2.1 Verifying whether a specific redemption cheque was re-
invested into the exact same folio or diverted elsewhere requires
detailed examination of bank clearing scrolls, ledger statements,
and oral testimony—an exercise strictly reserved for a full-fledged
trial.
25. Contention 9: The Amreli Money Trail (Trench 1, 2, 3 &
Identity Discrepancy "Kansara" vs. "Goradiya"):
Page 34 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
25.1 Petitioner's Argument: The cash flow from Amreli accounts
(passbooks of Bharatbhai, Hetalben, Dakshaben, Dalichandbhai,
Pushpaben), pooled family funds (Rs.53,07,007/-), and Powers of
Attorney were ignored, and there exists a discrepancy in surnames
( "Kansara" vs. "Goradiya" ).
25.2 Finding: The prosecution's case is that these cash deposits
and transfers were part of a coordinated modus operandi
involving cash re-routing. The legitimacy and financial capacity of
the Amreli relatives to generate over Rs.53 lakh in cash/deposits
must be tested through oral and documentary evidence at trial
inasmuch as, deposit for amount not exceeding Rs.49,000/- per
transaction in cash is a camouflage to avoid the rigours of Income-
Tax.
25.2.1 The discrepancy in surname (" Kansara" vs. "Goradiya" ) is a
typographical or identity issue appearing in records, which under
Section 465 Cr.P.C. is curable during trial and does not vitiate the
substratum of the Charge-sheet.
26. Contention 10: Wild Variance in Calculations (FIR Rs.1.04
Cr vs. Charge-Sheet Rs.2.32 Cr / 213% to 455%):
26.1 Petitioner's Argument: The alleged disproportionate assets
more than doubled between the FIR and the Charge-sheet for the
exact same check period, proving that the figures are purely
Page 35 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
conjectural.
26.2 Finding: An FIR is only an initiation of a criminal law
mechanism and is not an exhaustive accounting document. As an
investigation progresses, collection of bank statements, replies,
and deeper asset identification naturally leads to a more
comprehensive quantification of assets. An upward revision in the
final Charge-sheet computation reflects the culmination of a
detailed probe rather than an inherent legal illegality. A difference
between FIR estimates and Charge-sheet figures is not a ground
for quashing. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Amit
Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Anr. reported in AIROnline 2012
SC 668 : (2012) 9 SCC 460 that even where the Charge-sheet under
section 173(2) of the Code suffers from fundamental legal defects,
the Court may be very well within its jurisdiction to frame a
charge.
27. Contention 11: Six-Year Investigation Delay (2015 to 2020):
27.1 Petitioner's Argument: There was an unexplained delay of
nearly six years between the registration of the FIR (06.01.2015)
and the filing of the Charge-sheet (2020) in a purely document-
based case.
27.2 Finding: While delay is a relevant factor, in complex
economic offences and disproportionate assets cases involving
Page 36 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
voluminous banking records, multi-city asset tracing, and financial
analysis, a prolonged investigation period does not automatically
cause irremediable prejudice or invalidate the Charge-sheet.
27.3 No statutory bar of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is
attracted, as the offences under the P.C. Act carry imprisonment
exceeding three years. Prejudice caused by delay, if any, is a
ground to seek an expeditious trial before the Special Court, not
quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
28. In view of the detailed discussion above, this Court finds
that the Charge-sheet and accompanying material disclose a prima
facie case for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w.
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In exercise
of its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS, 2023, this
Court is not required to hold a full-fledged inquiry or to appreciate
evidence collected by the investigating agency to find out whether
the case would result into acquittal or conviction. Same has to be
left to the trial Court and the trial should be allowed to reach its
logical conclusion.
28.1 In the instant case, the factual foundation of the offence with
which the petitioner has been charged has been laid down in the
Charge-sheet. This Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein and
same has to be left to be decided by the trial Court in the trial. The
Page 37 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
petitioner shall be able to raise all his defences before the trial
Court and the trial Court shall have the benefit of going through
and marshalling the evidence on record and of considering the
case of both sides before coming to a conclusion of guilt or
otherwise of the petitioner in the trial. This Court cannot embark
into the same journey as it cannot sit on a mini-trial in exercise of
its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS, 2023. This Court is of considered opinion
that this is not an exceptional case where non-interference would
result in miscarriage of justice.
28.2 All the contentions raised by the petitioner—including fund
rotations, redemption credits, check period selection, independent
family incomes, and gift affidavits—are left open to be raised as
defences before the learned trial Court. The trial Court shall
adjudicate these issues on their own merits based on the evidence
adduced during trial, uninfluenced by any observations made in
this judgment.
29. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. The learned Special Judge
(ACB), Ahmedabad is directed to proceed with Special ACB Case
No. 17/2021 in accordance with law. Rule is discharged. Interim
relief, if any, stands vacated.
Page 38 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240557732016)
29.1 Pending applications shall stand disposed in view of
dismissal of the main application.
[ P. M. Raval, J. ]
hiren/16tss211026D
Page 39 of 39
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:01:07 IST 2026