PHULPARI KUMARI vs THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56839 of 2021
Arising out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2015 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
======================================================
Phulpari Kumari, W/o Yogendra Kumar Madhup, R/o Gayatrinagar Bisunpur
Pakari, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Through Vigilance Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hemant Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Kanishk Kaustubh, Adv.
Ms. Lakshmi Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Rajnish Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Ankesh Kumar Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Prerna, Adv.
Dr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar, SP/PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 14-05-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order of cognizance
dated 28.01.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance,
Patna in connection with Special Case No. 20 of 2015 arising out
of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 37 of 2015 registered for the offences
under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.
3 . The petitioner was posted as CDPO Patna. While
taking bribe, she was trapped by the Vigilance and the case was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56839 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
2/4
registered vide Vigilance P.S. Case No. 54 of 2013. During the
search of the house, inventory of other articles was prepared along
with several documents showing investment in Bank. Vigilance PS
Case No. 37 of 2015 was instituted under Section 13(1)(e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. During the course of enquiry, the
D.A. against her husband was found minimal. Therefore, no
charge-sheet was submitted against her. The difference between
the total income and expenditure of the petitioner during the check
period was Rs. 12,71,693/-. The total weight of gold jewellery was
646.400 grams. The case of the petitioner is that the same not only
belongs to her but also to her unmarried daughter and other family
members.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 and Press Release issued by
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of
Direct Taxes dated 01.12.2016 which prescribes that a married
woman is entitled to possess 500 Grams of gold jewellery,
unmarried lady is entitled to possess 250 Grams of gold jewellery
and male is entitled to possess 100 Grams of gold jewellery. There
is no doubt that the petitioner is a married woman and married
woman is entitled to 500 Grams of gold and the petitioner has a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56839 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
3/4
daughter who was unmarried on the date of search, i.e.,
17.08.2013.
5. Learned counsel for the Vigilance submits that
Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 and Press Release issued by
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of
Direct Taxes dated 01.12.2016 will not be applicable in the case of
the petitioner. He has filed counter-affidavit where the details of
mode and manner of assessment of gold jewellery has been given
but it is categorical case of the Vigilance Department that the
Instruction has been issued to the Income Tax Department with
reference to possession of gold jewellery. In sum and substance, it
is submitted by learned counsel for the Vigilance that the aforesaid
Executive Instruction/Guidelines issued by the Government has no
application in the present case of the petitioner.
6. In the present case, if the gold is calculated with
reference to the aforesaid Circular, the petitioner does not possess
more than 750 Grams which is the permissible limit of petitioner.
Thus, the Vigilance Department has seized the gold erroneously
and has committed error in calculating the weight of the gold
jewellery of the petitioner and determining the proportionate assets
of the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56839 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
4/4
7. In such view of the matter, the order of cognizance
dated 28.01.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance,
Patna in connection with Special Case No. 20 of 2015 arising out
of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 37 of 2015 registered for the offences
under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 is quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned.
8 . Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
(Ansul, J)
Vikash/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date