Gujarat HC Lets Retired Deputy Collector’s Alleged Rs 2.32-Crore Disproportionate-Assets Case Proceed, Leaves Fund-Rotation Claims For Trial

The petitioner, a retired Deputy Collector, sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC of an ACB FIR alleging possession of disproportionate assets during the check period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2008, and of the resulting charge-sheet and Special ACB Case No. 17/2021.

The FIR alleged disproportionate assets of approximately Rs.1.04 crore; the charge-sheet, after recalculation, alleged Rs.2.32 crore.

The petitioner challenged the investigation’s accounting, including its treatment of prior savings, family assets and income, gifts, loans, mutual-fund redemptions, and the selected check period. He also relied on alleged matrimonial malice and delay in filing the charge-sheet.

Whether the FIR, charge-sheet, and consequential proceedings disclosed a prima facie offence under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC.

Whether the petitioner’s challenges to the check period, asset and income calculations, family transactions, and investigation delay could be resolved in a quashing petition or were matters for trial.

The Court applied Section 482 CrPC, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as a limited inherent jurisdiction that does not permit a mini-trial or detailed appreciation of disputed evidence.

It considered Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, under which possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income may constitute criminal misconduct.

Relying on State of Maharashtra v. Pollonji Darabshaw Mistry, the Court stated that the check period is selected by reference to the allegations, provided it enables a true and comprehensive assessment.

It also relied on State of CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi and State of Chhattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh for the restraint against quashing a case where the material discloses a prima facie offence and for the rule that the High Court should not conduct an accounting audit under Section 482.

The Court further referred to P. Nallammal v. State on assets held by another person on behalf of a public servant, and Sudha Devi v. M.P. Narayanan on affidavits not constituting conclusive evidence without proof at trial.

The Court held that the prosecution’s documentary material disclosed a prima facie case and that the petitioner’s objections required factual assessment.

Whether investments reflected fresh funds or recycled redemption proceeds, whether relatives’ assets and gifts were genuine and independent, and whether the prosecution’s expense and income calculations involved duplication could not be determined without examining evidence at trial.

The Court also found that the selected check period did not, by itself, invalidate the charge-sheet; the petitioner could prove any prior savings at trial.

It rejected matrimonial animus and the difference between the FIR and charge-sheet figures as grounds for quashing, and treated the investigation delay as insufficient, without more, to invalidate the proceedings.

It directed the Special ACB Court, Ahmedabad, to proceed with Special ACB Case No. 17/2021 in accordance with law; the Rule was discharged and interim relief, if any, vacated.