Gujarat High Court Quashes 2014 Corruption FIR, Says Mere Possession of Cash Does Not Prove Disproportionate Assets

Court rules that a government official’s inability to immediately explain cash found during a raid cannot, by itself, establish an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act

The Gujarat High Court has quashed a decade-old FIR registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act against a government official, holding that the mere possession of cash without an immediate explanation does not amount to possessing disproportionate assets.

A single-judge bench observed that an official’s inability to explain the cash being carried at the time of a raid would not, by itself, constitute an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Allowing the application, the court set aside the FIR registered at the Gandhinagar Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Police Station.

Cash Recovered During 2014 Raid

The case dates back to October 2014, when ACB officials conducted a raid in the parking area of Jivraj Mehta Bhavan in Gandhinagar following anonymous inputs.

During the search, officials recovered ₹45,420 from the applicant’s handbag and ₹30,128 from her husband, who was also a government servant.

As the applicant could not immediately provide a satisfactory explanation for the cash, the authorities registered an FIR under Sections 12, 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 13(1)(d) was subsequently added to the case.

Defence Says Cash Was From Known Sources Of Income

The applicant’s counsel argued that she had been made a scapegoat because of strict administrative measures and testing action taken against pharmaceutical product samples that failed quality standards during her tenure as Joint Commissioner.

The defence further submitted that the recovered amount was untainted cash and was well within the household’s known sources of income. Both the applicant and her husband were government employees earning regular monthly salaries, which, according to the defence, exceeded the amount recovered during the raid.

Prosecution Failed To Establish Corrupt Means, Court Observes

The High Court noted that the prosecution had failed to establish the use of illegal or corrupt means as required under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.

It also pointed out that the raid did not involve a formal trap or the recovery of tainted money.

Regarding the charge under Section 13(1)(e), the bench emphasised that the prosecution must establish, through proper calculations, that an accused public servant’s assets are disproportionate to their known sources of income.

The court observed that merely because the applicant had fumbled while explaining the cash she was carrying, the circumstances would not bring the case within the scope of Section 13(1)(e).

The prosecution had relied on the applicant’s June 2014 salary slip, which showed that ₹62,914 had been deposited into her State Bank of India account in Gandhinagar.

Holding that the allegations did not establish the ingredients of the offences invoked, the High Court quashed the FIR and allowed the application.