Disproportionate Assets Case | Mere Reduction In Alleged Excess Assets During Probe No Ground For Discharge: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that an accused facing prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot seek discharge merely because the alleged disproportionate assets were reduced during investigation.
It clarified that the mere fact that the discrepancy between income and expenditure was whittled down after investigation, or that such discrepancy constituted only a small fraction of the accused's income, is by itself no ground to discharge the accused.
A bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra made this observation while dismissing a criminal revision filed by a government employee challenging the rejection of his discharge application in a disproportionate assets case registered under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Case in brief
The prosecution alleged that during the check period between April 1, 2004 and December 31, 2004, the revisionist (Anup Kumar Shrivastava) possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
While the FIR referred to a discrepancy of ₹3.16 lakh, the Anti-Corruption Wing, after investigation, assessed the alleged disproportionate assets at around ₹1.69 lakh and a charge sheet was filed after sanction for prosecution.
Before the High Court, the revisionist contended that the prosecution had failed to establish his "known sources of income".
It was also contended that the sanction for prosecution was granted without proper application of mind and that the trial court had mechanically rejected his discharge application without considering his specific submissions.
It was his stance that the alleged discrepancy between income and expenditure had substantially reduced during the investigation, and that the remaining amount could be attributed to loans obtained by him from friends and relatives, as well as to other assets attributable to his Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).
The AGA, on the other hand, submitted that at the stage of considering the discharge application and framing of charge, the trial court is not expected to undertake a mathematical calculation of the discrepant amount.
It was contended that if the trial court relies on the amount calculated by the Investigating Agency on the basis of documents, and only because the discrepant amount is not large, the accused could not be discharged.
High Court's observations
Finding substance in the arguments of the AGA, the bench rejected the submissions of the revisionist as it noted that the Anti-Corruption Wing had prepared a calculation chart after analysing the revisionist's income and expenditure and found an excess expenditure of ₹1,69,815 over his lawful income during the check period.
It further observed that the sanctioning authority had recorded satisfaction after examining the materials collected during investigation.
The Court held:
"The mere fact that the discrepancy between income and expenditure was whittled down after investigation is significant but cannot found a sole ground to discharge the revisionist. Similarly, the fact that discrepancy is a small fraction of income of the revisionist is also not ground to discharge him from alleged charges”.
Regarding the revisionist's plea that the disputed amounts were borrowed from friends and relatives, the Court observed that these were matters requiring evidence during trial.
"During trial of the case, the revisionist shall have opportunity to prove every single amount received by him from valid sources through the testimony of witnesses and by also filing contemporaneous document and intimation to the government. There are relevant rules with regard to investment, lending and borrowing with regard to a government servant and he has to prove to the satisfaction of the court. He will have to prove to the satisfaction of the court that any amount borrowed by him from a friend or relative was within purview of the limit prescribed in the relevant rules and was duly intimated in prescribed form to the government or to the officer authorized in behalf".
Such factual determination, the Court held, cannot be undertaken at the stage of framing of charge.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State vs R. Soundirarasu 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 741, the High Court reiterated that while considering discharge under Section 239 CrPC, courts are only required to examine whether a prima facie case exists and cannot conduct a mini trial or evaluate the accused's defence as though deciding the case finally.
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander 2012, wherein it was observed that even a "strong suspicion" regarding the accused's involvement is sufficient to frame charges, and that courts should not undertake a meticulous examination of evidence or assess the likelihood of conviction at the preliminary stage.
"At the initial stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that an accused had committed an offense, which, if put to trial could prove him guilty. All that the court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of proof of guilt is not to be applied at that stage," the Court remarked.
Finding that the inquiry report and material collected during investigation raised "a serious doubt and a grave suspicion" regarding the revisionist's involvement, the High Court held that the trial court had rightly refused to discharge him.
It found no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order and dismissed the revision petition.
Counsel for Revisionist(s): Shreshth Srivastava, Sarika Mittal, Avdhesh Kumar Pandey, Radhika Varma and Trisha Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A.
Case Title - Anup Kumar Shrivastava vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 508
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 508