₹45,420 Cash Find: Gujarat HC Quashes Corruption FIR Against Food And Drug Officer, Citing Her Salary And Government-Servant Husband’s Income

The applicant, a public servant, was searched by an ACB raiding party on 14 October 2014 while in a car with her husband. The search recovered ₹45,420 from her handbag and ₹30,128 from her husband.

The applicant was unable to explain the cash to the complainant’s satisfaction, and an FIR was registered under Sections 12, 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(1)(d) was later added and Section 12 deleted.

The applicant sought to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She contended that the cash was not tainted and was not disproportionate to her known income; the State opposed the application on the ground that she had not satisfactorily explained its source.

The charge-sheet and two later ACB communications closing disproportionate-assets applications were before the Court.

1. Whether the FIR and charge-sheet disclosed the ingredients of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Whether possession of ₹45,420, coupled with the applicant’s initial inability to explain it, disclosed an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act.

3. Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed qua the applicant under Section 482 CrPC.

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings in an appropriate case.

For Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must disclose how the public servant obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage through corrupt or illegal means, by abuse of position, or without public interest.

For Section 13(1)(e), as set out by the Court, the prosecution must establish that the accused is a public servant, identify the pecuniary resources or property in the accused’s possession, establish the accused’s known sources of income, and show that the resources or property are disproportionate to those sources; the accused’s ability to account for the resources is also relevant.

No precedent was cited.

The Court found no evidence in the FIR or charge-sheet explaining how the applicant had obtained the cash through corrupt or illegal means, by abusing her position, or otherwise within Section 13(1)(d); the recovery was not the result of a trap and the money was not alleged to be tainted.

As to Section 13(1)(e), the prosecution had not shown that ₹45,420 was disproportionate to the applicant’s known income. The Court noted her salary, her husband’s salary and statements recorded during the investigation that supported her explanation for possessing the cash.

It held that the applicant’s inability to explain the money immediately upon questioning, without evidence establishing disproportionality, was insufficient to make out the offence.

It allowed the application and quashed the FIR, C.R. No. 8 of 2014, registered with the Gandhinagar ACB Police Station, together with the consequential proceedings, qua the applicant; the Rule was made absolute to that extent.