Gandhinagar, Nov 12:- In October 2014 an Anti-Corruption Bureau team searched a car in a Gandhinagar government complex and found Rs 45,420 in the handbag of a Food and Drug Control Administration officer and Rs 30,128 with her husband.
An FIR followed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, including Section 13(1)(e) on disproportionate assets but 12 years later, Justice P.M. Raval quashed it.
The Court found no material of any corrupt demand or gain for Section 13(1)(d), held that the cash was not shown to be tainted or disproportionate to the couple’s salaries, noted that no disproportionate-assets calculation formed part of the charge-sheet, and held that a mere failure to explain cash does not amount to an offence under Section 13(1)(e).
Previously, as per the case history, the ACB Police Inspector, Vadodara, received information through informers that officials of the Food and Drug Control Administration carried cash from applicants in their private car.
On 14 October 2014, at about 6:45 pm, a raiding party searched a car in the parking area of Block No. 8, Dr. Jivraj Mehta Bhavan, Gandhinagar. Rs 45,420 was found in the applicant’s handbag and Rs 30,128 with her husband, and neither explanation satisfied the complainant.
She was detained for questioning, arrested on 17 October 2014, remanded for two days and later released on regular bail.
FIR C.R. No. 8 of 2014 was registered at Gandhinagar ACB Police Station under Sections 12, 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(1)(d) was added later and deletion of Section 12 was sought.
The applicant, who held additional charge as Joint Commissioner (Testing), argued that she had been targeted after taking strict action, that the cash was not tainted and was not disproportionate to her income, that no aggrieved person alleged corruption, and that earlier disproportionate-assets applications against her had been closed.
The prosecution argued that her failure to explain the cash, and contradictions in her statements, made out a prima facie case.
On Section 13(1)(d), the Court found there was no trap and no statement showing how the applicant obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt means, observing that “Not a single evidence was placed on record” on this aspect.
On Section 13(1)(e), it listed the elements the prosecution must establish: that the accused is a public servant, the nature and extent of her pecuniary resources, her known sources of income, and that those resources were disproportionate to that income.
It recorded her monthly salary as Rs 65,246 and her husband’s as Rs 48,206, and relied on a June 2014 pay slip showing Rs 62,914 credited to her bank account, as well as letters closing earlier disproportionate-assets applications.
The Court held that the cash was not shown to be tainted or disproportionate to the couple’s combined income, and that the standard disproportionate-assets calculation was not part of the charge-sheet.
Stating that “If the accused is able to account for such resources or property, no such offence would be made out”, it held that non-explanation alone is insufficient for an offence under Section 13(1)(e), and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings.
A mere failure to explain cash found in a raid, without a disproportionate-assets calculation in the charge-sheet, is not an offence under Section 13(1)(e).
The High Court held that the case lacked the basic ingredients of both offences charged, and that the law punishes disproportion and corrupt gain, not an unsatisfactory answer during a search.
|