DIPIKABEN ROHITKUMAR CHAUHAN vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.MA/19978/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240481842014)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 19978 of 2014

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
DIPIKABEN ROHITKUMAR CHAUHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK H DAVE(6295) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 21/10/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The applicant before this Court has invoked Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash and set aside the FIR
being C.R. No.8 of 2014 registered with the Gandhinagar A.C.B.
Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 12, 13(1)
(e) and 13(2) and subsequently added Section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alongwith the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The crux of the allegation leveled in the FIR are to the effect
that the Police Inspector, A.C.B., Vadodara allegedly received
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 22 15:40:47 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/19978/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240481842014)
secrete information through his informers that the Dy. Commissioner
and a Junior Clerk of Food and Drug Control Administration located
in Dr. Jivraj Mehta Bhavan, Block No.8, Gandhinagar, carry
amounts received from the applicants in their private car. Hence, it
was decided to carry out a raid in that connection.
2.1. Accordingly, on 14.10.2014 the raiding party reached in the
parking area in Block No.8, Dr. Jivraj Mehta Bhavan and at around
18:45, one man and woman set in that particular car and at that time
the raiding party reached there introduced themselves and
questioning both the occupants of that car. The search was carried
out of both the occupants and the car by the raiding party. From the
hand bag of the applicant an amount of Rs.45,420/- was recovered in
connection of which the explanation was sought. That the applicant
was unable to give explanation to the satisfaction of the complainant.
2.2. Thereafter other occupant – Rohitkumar Shantilal Chauhan
(husband of the applicant) was also searched and an amount of
Rs.30,128/- was found. That, on being question about possession of
that amount said Rohitkumar was not able to give explanation to the
satisfaction of the complainant. In said set of circumstances the FIR
came to be lodged.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Hardik H. Dave for applicant would
submit that after lodging of the aforesaid FIR, the applicant was
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 22 15:40:47 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/19978/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240481842014)
detained for interrogation on 14.10.2014 till 15.10.2014 and was
permitted to go home and written summons were given to remain
present on 16.10.2014. The applicant was interrogated and was again
called on 17.10.2014 at 5:00 p.m., the applicant was arrested. That,
on 18.10.2014 remand report was submitted for a period of five
days, and the remand was granted for a period of two days by an
order dated 18.10.2014 by the learned trial Court. Thereafter, the
applicant came to be enlarged on regular bail, and thereafter, the
investigation was proceeded and the investigating officer submitted
a report for adding Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act on 05.11.2014. Thereafter, on 21.11.2014, the investigating
officer submitted another report for deletion of Section 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.
3.1. It is submitted that there are ample reason to believe that the
applicant is being made a scapegoat on account of the strict action
taken by the applicant to improve the efficiency of her department.
That the investigating agency is not having any independent source
of information as narrated in the FIR, but on behest of Managing
Director of Jay Formulations Ltd., Ahmedabad, that the present FIR
is initiated.
3.2. Learned advocate would further submit that on 17.04.2013, the
applicant was given additional charge of Joint Commissioner
(Testing) and therefore the Food and Drug Laboratory, Vadodara was
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 22 15:40:47 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/19978/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240481842014)
placed under her control. That, on account of the active steps taken
by the applicant in increasing the efficiency of the staff and the
equipments after taking over the charge and the samples which
failed in tests, pursuant to which the Jay Formulations company
attempted to deter the present applicant from her strict vigil by
submitting anonymous letters concerning the applicant, and when
such tactics did not work out, started visiting head office of A.C.B.
and pursuant to which witch-hunting of the applicant started.
3.3. Learned advocate would further submit that the applicant
herein made a representation to the director bringing all these facts
on the record alongwith the test reports of the samples of said
pharmaceutical company, which was also placed on record
alongwith the present application. Learned advocate would also
submit that even if the allegations leveled against the applicant in the
FIR are taken to be true and correct, however, the ingredients of the
ingredients of the offence of Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act are not made out, inasmuch as, the prosecution is
failed to point out as to how the recover of Rs.45,420/- from the
present applicant which are even not tainted money, could be
considered as disproportionate to the known source of income, since
the salary of the applicant and the amount found cannot be termed as
disproportionate to the known source of income.
3.4. It is also the case of the applicant that her husband is also a
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 22 15:40:47 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/19978/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240481842014)
government servant and working in the same department and that
there is no prohibition of carrying the cash amount with the applicant
even as per the GCSR, calling for any explanation. When the
applicant could not immediately give answers with regards to the
recovery of the amount, it cannot be said that the present applicant
was having an amount disproportionate to the known source of
income.
3.5. Learned advocate would further submit that as far as Section
13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, except for
the allegations in the FIR that there were anonymous applications
with regards to corrupt practices being adopted by the present
applicant is concern, there is not a single statement of any aggrieved
party alleging corrupt practices being adopted by the present
applicant, and as such, prima facie there is no case attracting
provisions of Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Even otherwise, any amount which has been obtained either by loan
or otherwise from third party has to be informed to the office within
two months as per the GCSR. And thus, it is argued that at the
relevant point of time, the two months’ basic salary of the present
applicant amounted to Rs.70,000/-, and therefore, recovery of
Rs.45,420/- from the present applicant falls short of such
requirement, and therefore also, she was not under any obligation to
inform to the office with regards to even if any amount which has
been obtained from friends / known persons by way of loan or
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 22 15:40:47 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/19978/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240481842014)
otherwise. Thus, it is argued that the present application be allowed.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant would place on record the
photocopies of two letters dated 13.06.2023 and 09.10.2026 whereby
the application for disproportionate asset came to be closed way
back in year 2023 and secondly in year 2026, the same are taken on
record.
5. Per contra , the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
submit that a prima facie case of Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act is made out, inasmuch as the applicant has failed
to explain the source of cash which was found from her during the
raid, and there are contradictory statements with regards to the
explanation of the cash found from her, which creates serious doubt
with regards to the genuineness of the amount found to the tune of
Rs.45,420/-, and when the applicant has failed to satisfactorily
account for the possession of Rs.45,420/-, it would clearly fall within
the four corners of Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, and as thus, argued to reject the present application.
6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. This Court
has gone through the papers of the charge-sheet as well as FIR
against the applicant. Not a single evidence was placed on record as
far as attracting provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act are concerned. There is not a single statement as to
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 22 15:40:47 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/19978/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240481842014)
how and by what corrupt or illegal means, or by how abusing her
position as a public servant, has obtained any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage, namely Rs.45,420/- as alleged, without any
public interest. However, it is only based on some anonymous
applications that the search was conducted in person, where
Rs.45,420/- was found in possession of the present applicant. Thus,
it is also not the case of the prosecution that it was a trap and that
tainted amount was recovered from the present applicant. Having
said so, none of the ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act are attracted.
7. As far as attracting the provisions of Section 13(1)(e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, to sustain the said charge
the prosecution following ingredients are necessary:
1. The prosecution must prove that the accused is a public
servant (which she is and is not under dispute).
2. The nature and extent of pecuniary resources or property
which are found in his or her possession (as alleged, sum of
Rs.45,420/- in cash was found from the possession of the
present applicant).
3. It must be proved as to what were his/her known source of
income that is known to the prosecution, which in the present
case, Rs.65,246/- is her salary and Rs.48,206/- is her husband’s
salary.
4. The prosecution must object and prove that the resources or
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 22 15:40:47 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/19978/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240481842014)
property found in possession of the accused were
disproportionate to his or her known source of income.
8. It is only if the above ingredients are satisfied, that the offence
of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act would be attracted. If the accused is able to account
for such resources or property, no such offence would be made out.
Merely because the present applicant fumble in giving the
explanation with regards to the amount she was carrying would not
fall within the four corners of Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, inasmuch as the prosecution has relied upon the pay
slip of June 2014 wherein her pay deposited in the SBI Gandhinagar
branch bearing account No.10544600220 is to the tune of
Rs.62,914/-. Learned advocate for the applicant had also relied upon
two communications of the department, whereby while
communication dated 13.06.2023 by the reader police inspector,
Ahmedabad Application Department 2 of the ACB and subsequent
communication dated 09.10.2026 by the Police Inspector,
Gandhinagar ACB Police Station, the applications for
disproportionate asset were closed.
9. Be that as it may, merely the applicant having found in
possession of Rs.45,420/- and in absence of any satisfactory
explanation at the very instance itself would not amount to property
disproportionate to her known source of income or pecuniary
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 22 15:40:47 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/19978/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240481842014)
resources inasmuch as the husband of the present applicant is also a
government servant and as he could satisfactorily given answer to
the amount which he was carrying to the tune of Rs.30,128/- was not
arraigned as an accused in the present case.
10. It is also the case of the prosecution, whereby the statement of
Nirananjan Desai and Pratik Desai were recorded by the
investigation agency, would support the case of the applicant, which
in turn would clarify as to how she was possessing Rs.45,420/- with
her. If the salary in June 2014 is to the tune of Rs.62,914, the
applicant having found with a sum of Rs.45,420/- which is not
tainted money, cannot be said to be disproportionate to the known
source of income since both husband and wife are working, and
merely non-explanation as to how she was in possession of this
Rs.45,420/- would not fall within the four corners of Section 13(1)
(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Since it is the obligation of
the prosecution to allege as to how Rs.45,420/- would be
disproportionate to the known source of income of the applicant
alongwith her husband, who is also a government servant and was
also searched.
11. It is also required to be noted that generally the prosecutions
would rely upon the calculations under a, b, c, d formula, which is
also not forming part of the present charge-sheet, which would point
out as to how the amount is disproportionate to the non-source of
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 22 15:40:47 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/19978/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240481842014)
income. Thus, merely on the non-explanation by the present
applicant with regards to the amount she was holding during the raid
conducted would not amount to offence under Section 13(1)(e) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act.
12. Under the circumstances, the present application is allowed.
The FIR being C.R. No.8 of 2014 registered with the Gandhinagar
A.C.B. Police Station, and consequential proceedings arising
therefrom are hereby quashed and set aside qua the present
applicant.
13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
permitted.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
NITIN MAKWANA
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 22 15:40:47 IST 2026