Rs 45,420 in a handbag and no computation in the charge-sheet: the Gujarat High Court has held that unexplained cash alone does not make out disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and has quashed the corruption FIR against a woman officer of the Food and Drug Control Administration.
Ahmedabad: Not being able to explain Rs 45,420 found in her handbag during a raid does not amount to possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of income, the Gujarat High Court has held, quashing an Anti-Corruption Bureau FIR and the consequential proceedings against a woman government officer [Dipikaben Rohitkumar Chauhan v. State of Gujarat].
The order was passed by Justice P. M. Raval on an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was directed against FIR C.R. No. 8 of 2014 of the Gandhinagar A.C.B. Police Station, registered under Sections 12, 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, with Section 13(1)(d) added later. Judgment was delivered on October 21, 2026. The allegations in the FIR were never tested at trial, and the Court ended the case at the threshold.
A handbag is not a computation
For criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(e), the Court said, the prosecution must establish four things: that the accused is a public servant, the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources found with her, her known sources of income, and that the resources are disproportionate to those sources. On the figures before it, her salary was Rs 65,246 and her husband’s was Rs 48,206. The prosecution itself relied on a June 2014 pay slip showing Rs 62,914 deposited in her salary account. The husband, also a government servant, had Rs 30,128 on him, gave an answer that was accepted, and was not made an accused. The Court said:
“…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…”
The charge-sheet, the Court observed, did not carry the calculation on which the prosecution ordinarily relies to show how an amount is disproportionate, and statements recorded by the investigating agency itself supported how she came to hold the cash. It also took on record two departmental letters, dated June 13, 2023 and October 9, 2026, showing that the separate disproportionate assets applications against her had been closed.
Section 13(1)(d): no trap, no tainted money
On the later-added provision, the Court went through the charge-sheet and the FIR and found nothing that attracted it:
“Not a single evidence was placed on record as far as attracting provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are concerned.”
The search had been conducted on anonymous applications, the prosecution did not claim that a trap was laid, and no tainted money was recovered. None of the ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) was therefore attracted, the Court noted.
The raid and the FIR
As the FIR puts it, the Police Inspector of the A.C.B., Vadodara, got secret information from informers that officials of the Food and Drug Control Administration were carrying money received from applicants in a private car. On October 14, 2014, at about 6.45 pm, a raiding party went to the parking area of Dr. Jivraj Mehta Bhavan, Block No. 8, Gandhinagar, and searched the car and its two occupants. Rs 45,420 was found in the applicant’s handbag and, according to the FIR, she could not explain it to the complainant’s satisfaction. Her husband, Rohitkumar Shantilal Chauhan, was searched too, and Rs 30,128 was found with him.
Her counsel told the Court that she was detained for interrogation on October 14 and 15, 2014, arrested on October 17, remanded for two days on October 18 and later released on regular bail. Section 13(1)(d) was added on November 5, 2014, and Section 12 was deleted on November 21, 2014, he said. The applicant contended that she was being made a scapegoat for strict action she took to improve her department’s efficiency after taking additional charge as Joint Commissioner (Testing) on April 17, 2013, when samples of a pharmaceutical company failed tests and anonymous letters followed.
These are the applicant’s contentions and the Court did not rule on them. The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that she had failed to explain the cash and had given contradictory statements.
Where the Supreme Court has drawn the line
The Supreme Court has read “known sources of income” in Section 13(1)(e) closely. In Kedari Lal v. State of M.P. [(2015) 14 SCC 505], a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Uday Umesh Lalit held that the phrase has two requirements, a lawful source and receipt that was intimated as the law or rules require, and acquitted an official after the unexplained balance in his case was found to be a small fraction of his income. The Gujarat High Court’s reasoning follows the same logic: the question is how the resources compare with the whole of the household’s known income, not whether the officer could explain the cash on the spot.
The order
The application was allowed. FIR C.R. No. 8 of 2014 and the consequential proceedings against the applicant stand quashed, and the Rule was made absolute to that extent. The Court expressed no view on any other allegation, and the order applies only to this applicant.
What the judgment changes
A failure to explain cash during a raid is not, by itself, a finding of disproportionate assets. The prosecution has to put the figures on record, show the known sources of income and demonstrate the disproportion, ordinarily through a computation. Without that material, a case under Section 13(1)(e) can be ended at the quashing stage, even a dozen years after the FIR.
Case Title: Dipikaben Rohitkumar Chauhan v. State of Gujarat [R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Quashing and Set Aside FIR/Order) No. 19978 of 2014]
Bench: Justice P. M. Raval, Gujarat High Court
Date of Judgment: October 21, 2026
Appearances: Mr. Hardik H. Dave, Advocate, for the applicant; Public Prosecutor for the respondent State