Gujarat High Court Quashes Corruption FIR Against Govt Officer Over ₹45K Cash Recovered From Purse

The Gujarat High Court quashed a corruption case against a public servant after a raid was conducted and Rs. 45,420 was found from her purse, observing that merely because she was unable to give a satisfactory explanation would not amount to an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act in absence of evidence. 

It was alleged that Rs. 45,420/- was found from the purse of the applicant, a public servant, during a raid conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau. 

Justice PM Raval after perusing the charge-sheet as well as FIR against the applicant said that not a single evidence was placed on record as to how provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are attracted. 

The court said that there was not a single statement as to how and by what corrupt or illegal means, or how by abusing her position as a public servant, the applicant has obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage–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," the court said. 

The court said that to attract Prevention of Corruption Act the  prosecution must prove that the accused is a public servant (which she is and is not under dispute); that 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).

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. 

Further the prosecution must object and prove that the resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his or her known source of income. 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. The court said that 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.

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 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," the court said.