R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET

ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 33697 of 2016

With

CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025

In R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 33697 of 2016

With

CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026

In R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 33697 of 2016

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

√

================================================

KAMLESH HARILAL GORADIA

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

================================================

Appearance:

MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Applicant(s) No. 1

MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Applicant(s) No. 1

DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 21/10/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1.By way of the present application under Section 482 of the

Page 1 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C."), the petitioner, a

retired Deputy Collector (Class-I), has prayed for quashing and

setting aside First Information Report being C.R. No. I-1 of 2015

registered with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Police Station,

Ahmedabad, for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w.

Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("P.C.

Act"), as well as the consequential Charge-sheet bearing No.

ACB/KPT/AVD/970/2024 and the resultant criminal proceedings

in Special ACB Case No. 17/2021 pending before the learned

Special Judge (ACB), Ahmedabad.

2.The petitioner was appointed as a direct recruit Mamlatdar on

10.02.1986, subsequently promoted to the rank of Deputy Collector

(Class-I), and superannuated from public service on 28.02.2015.

3.On 06.01.2015, the impugned FIR was registered alleging that

during the check period running from 01.01.2000 to 31.12.2008 (a

period of 9 years), the petitioner, while serving as a public servant,

amassed assets disproportionate to his known, lawful sources of

income to the extent of Rs.1,04,16,880/- (213.08%).

4.Following an extensive investigation, a final report under

Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Charge-sheet) was filed before the competent

court, wherein the investigating agency recalculated the financial

figures based on Statements A to D. As per the Charge-sheet, the

petitioner’s assets stood at Rs.17,92,495/- prior to the check period

Page 2 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

and rose to Rs.2,93,94,113/- at the close of the check period. After

setting off credited income of Rs.50,94,739/- against expenditure of

Rs.7,19,195/-, the alleged disproportionate assets were determined

to be Rs.2,32,26,074/- (455.88%). For the sake of convenience, facts

as narrated in FIR, in verbatim, are reproduced:

“Date: 1.1.2015

I, N. M. Sindhi, Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Field

Mehsana Unit, Mehsana.

The facts of the complaint on behalf of the Government are that I

am serving as a Police Inspector in the Anti-Corruption Bureau,

Field Mehsana Unit, Mehsana.

As Police Inspector, ACB Mehsana, my jurisdiction covers the

entire area of Mehsana, Gandhinagar, Sabarkantha, and Aravalli

Districts. My duties involve taking legal action under the

Prevention of Corruption Act and performing duties entrusted to

me by the senior officers of the Bureau.

By written Order No. TAPAS/G/VAPI/01/2013/2959 dated

21.09.2013 from the Chief Police Officer and Director, Anti-

Corruption Bureau, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, we received orders

stating that Mr. Kamleshbhai Haribhai Goradiya, Deputy

Collector Class-1, Headquarters Vyara, Dist. Tapi, currently

serving as Deputy Collector, Election Branch, Botad, as a public

servant, possesses property disproportionate to his known legal

sources of income, amounting to approximately Rs.1,04,16,880/-

(Rupees One Crore Four Lakh Sixteen Thousand Eight Hundred

Eighty only). Since it prima facie appears that the alleged public

servant has acquired disproportionate assets in his name and in the

names of his family members, an order was issued under Order No.

TAPAS/G/TAPI/01/2013/3754 dated 31.12.14 by the Police

Officer and Director, A.C.B., Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, to

register an offense under Section 13(1)(e) r/w. Section 13(2) of the

Page 3 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Mr. Kamleshbhai Haribhai Goradiya, Deputy Collector Class-1,

Headquarters Vyara, Dist. Tapi, currently Deputy Collector,

Election Branch, Botad, has legal salary ownership and other

sources of income. His salary income and the movable/immovable

assets and expenditure acquired/incurred in his name, prima facie,

are as follows:

In the year 2005, the accused acquired land in his name and in the

names of his family members at Village: Visoj, Taluka: Kadi, for

Rs.1,90,000/- at Mehsana under Survey Nos. 478, 479, 480, 481,

total area 2482–487/2.

Purchased 2.18.53 Hectares, Are, and Guntha, for which land

purchase consideration was paid by cheque amounting to

Rs.1,75,000/- and stamp paper worth Rs.15,000/- was used,

totalling a payment of Rs.1,90,000/-.

In the year 2008, while serving at Porbandar, the accused

purchased 135 sq. meters of land out of Revenue Survey No.

188/1/P/1 at Village: Chhaya, Taluka & District: Porbandar, as a

government servant under the order of the Collector, Porbandar, in

his name for Rs.25,798/-.

The accused invested Rs.68,54,207/- in his name and in the names

of his family members in IDBI Flexi Bonds, UTI, Bank of India

Infotech, ICICI Tax Saving Bond, HDFC Bank Bond, Franklin

Templeton Investment Bond, Sundaram Mutual Fund, SBI

Mutual Fund, and Reliance Mutual Fund.

The accused transferred Rs.24,00,000/- from his wife's ICICI Bank

Account No. 0067010702 to the Ahmedabad Post Office and

deposited Rs.18,00,000/- in the Post Office at Chembur, Mumbai,

along with Rs.6,00,000/- deposited, making total investments in

the Post Office amounting to Rs.24,00,000/-.

In 2005, the accused purchased a TVS Company Scooty from

Ahmedabad for Rs.25,000/- in his wife's name from TVS Motors

Page 4 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

Ltd.

On 07.02.2005, from Ambika Smruti Co-operative Housing

Society Ltd., Division-1 22,19,003/-, behind Rajpath Club,

Bodakdev, Ahmedabad, a plot measuring 1500 sq. meters for 24

Shaswat Bungalows was purchased in his wife's name for

Rs.6,00,000/-, for which stamp duty on document of Rs.39,053/-

was paid by the accused. Thereafter, as per a construction

agreement dated 01.09.2006, the accused paid Rs.10,74,000/- to

Ambika Smruti Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Division-1 for

constructing a house. After construction, since the property was in

his wife's name, it was transferred to his name via a gift deed dated

21.10.2008. On the basis of this gift deed, the house was registered

at the Sub-Registrar Office, Memnagar, Ahmedabad with

government jantry value where stamp duty of Rs.4,81,500/- and

registrar fees of Rs.98,450/- were paid by the accused.

Thus, after initially purchasing the above-mentioned house in his

wife's name and subsequently transferring it to his name via gift

deed, total investment made by the accused was Rs.22,19,003/-.

In 1996, at Naroda G.I.D.C., the accused purchased Plot No. 25/7

and took necessary steps to establish a factory named Maruti

Industries on said plot. However, as the plot land was agricultural,

steps were taken to convert it to industrial use. But since

government sanction was not granted, no factory was built on said

plot. Total amount paid in different years towards plot purchase

was Rs.20,05,329/-. However, out of total payments, the accused

paid Rs.5,80,912/- by cheque during the check period on

03.02.2000. Thus, during the check period, the accused incurred

investment expenditure of Rs.5,80,912/-.

Total Rs.1,22,94,920/-

Thus, according to the above details, the accused made investments

in immovable and movable assets in his name amounting to

Rs.1,22,94,920/-.

Page 5 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

(No.) Expense Item Amount (Rs.)

(1)Electricity Bill 5,40,000/-

(2)Telephone / Cellphone Expenses 1,08,000/-

(3)Children's Education Expenses 10,00,000/-

(4)Travel / Tour Expenses 80,000/-

(5)Vehicle Maintenance Expenses 24,000/-

(6)House / Vehicle Taxes, etc. 1,08,000/-

(7)Other Expenses (Gas Expenses) 21,600/-

(8)House (Flat) Maintenance Expenses 1,08,000/-

(9)Purchase of Gold (2003) 10,21,167/-

Total Expenditure 30,10,567/-

Salary income of the accused from January 2000 to December 2008

was Rs.24,71,271/-. After deducting fixed deductions of

Rs.10,15,541/- from salary, the net income was Rs.14,55,730/-.

Out of this net income, calculating household expenditure at a

minimum rate of 30% amounting to Rs.4,36,719/-, the probable

savings remain at Rs.10,19,011/-.

In the Income Tax returns filed by the accused and his wife from

2006 to 2008, the accused's wife showed agricultural income of

Rs.6,89,640/-, and the accused showed his income as Rs.3,08,726/-

in his returns for 2007–08. Thus, total agricultural income was

considered as Rs.9,98,366/-. After deducting 40% agricultural

expenses amounting to Rs.3,99,346/-, net agricultural income

according to Income Tax returns was Rs.5,99,020/-.

Additionally, investment made in 3i Infotech in the name of the

accused and his wife from 1999 to 2003 matured between 2004 and

2006, generating total income of Rs.1,66,876/-.

Page 6 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

Furthermore, in 2006, the accused sold 1990 grams of gold held by

him to Maruti Bullion, Ahmedabad, generating income of

Rs.16,11,900/-. The accused also withdrew Rs.14,92,000/- from his

G.P.F. Account between 2004 and 2008, which was received as

income.

Thus, total net income from salary savings (Rs.10,19,011/-),

agricultural income (Rs.5,99,020/-), maturity of investments

(Rs.1,66,876/-), sale of gold (Rs.16,11,900/-), and G.P.F.

withdrawals (Rs.14,92,000/-) amounts to Rs.48,88,807/-.

During the period from 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2008, accused Mr.

Kamleshbhai Haribhai Goradiya, Deputy Collector Class-1,

Headquarters Vyara, Dist. Tapi, currently Deputy Collector,

Election Branch, Botad, incurred expenditure and investment

expenses of Rs.30,10,367/- + Rs.1,22,94,920/- = Rs.1,53,05,687/-.

Whereas during this period, his total probable savings including

salary and other income were Rs.48,88,807/-. Therefore,

investment/expenditure exceeds income by Rs.1,04,16,880/-, which

is considered disproportionate investment/expenditure by the

accused.

Apart from this, accused Mr. Kamleshbhai Haribhai Goradiya,

Deputy Collector, Class-1, Headquarters Vyara, Dist. Tapi,

currently Deputy Collector, Election Branch, Botad, has apparent

expenses such as investments made in banks, post offices, private

firms, gold/silver ornaments, and financial institutions like L.I.C.,

etc., as well as shares, vehicle maintenance expenses,

electricity/telephone bills, house tax, vehicle tax, income tax, and

other taxes paid, purchase of electrical appliances and furniture,

educational expenses, and donations/gifts/expenses given on social

occasions, along with details of other investment expenses. Upon

receiving these details, the figure of investment expenditure is

likely to increase significantly. Furthermore, detailed evaluation of

immovable properties, fixed furniture, raw materials, etc., is also

likely to increase the investment expenditure figure.

Moreover, there is a possibility of investments found in other

named/benami properties, and in this manner,

Page 7 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

investment/expenditure by the accused is likely to increase further.

Looking at the above details, accused Kamleshbhai Haribhai

Goradiya, Deputy Collector Class-1, Headquarters Vyara, Dist.

Tapi, currently Deputy Collector, Election Branch, Botad, while

discharging duties as a public servant from 10.02.1986 till date,

indulged in corrupt practices, misused his official position,

committed criminal misconduct, illegally acquired money for

personal gain, and prima facie made disproportionate

investments/expenditure amounting to Rs.1,04,16,880/- (Rupees

One Crore Four Lakh Sixteen Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty

only) out of such money. Since he has committed an offense

punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w. Section 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, my complaint is to take lawful

action against him.

My witnesses are those who turn up during investigation and

documentary evidence recovered during investigation. Hence, the

facts of my complaint are correct and true.

(N. M. Sindhi),

Police Inspector, A.C.B. Field Mehsana Unit.”

5.Learned Advocate Mr. B M.Mangukia has argued at length

and has taken to various statements, accounts as well as affidavits

of witness and statements forming part of the Charge-sheet. The

crux of arguments of learned advocate Mr. B M. Mangukia is to

the following effect:

5.1.Background & Profile of the Petitioner:

5.1.1Service Profile: The petitioner, Mr. Kamleshbhai Haribhai

Goradiya, was appointed as a direct recruit Mamlatdar on

Page 8 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

10.02.1986. He subsequently served as Deputy Collector (Class-1)

and retired from service on 28.02.2015, currently receiving a

monthly pension of approximately Rs.39,000/-.

5.1.2Family & Matrimonial Relations: The petitioner married his

wife (Beenaben) in 1991, with whom he has three children: Dimple

(unmarried, CS student), Ashuta (unmarried, M.A. student), and

Parthiv (son). On account of marital disputes, the petitioner and

his wife have lived separately since the year 2000 as per the say of

wife herself.

5.1.3Family Responsibilities: The petitioner currently resides

with and supports his 93-year-old mother (Girijaben) and two

elderly sisters—Hansaben (69, divorcee) and Neelaben (62,

unmarried).

5.2History of Malicious & Serial Litigations by the Estranged

Wife:

The petitioner contends that the present FIR is an offshoot of a

deliberate pattern of harassment, coercion, and "arm-twisting"

orchestrated by his estranged wife to tarnish his image as a public

servant and compel him and his family to yield to her demands:

5.2.1Matrimonial & Civil Proceedings:

a)Filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 492 of 2009 in the

Page 9 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

Family Court, Ahmedabad.

b)Filed Special Civil Suit No. 144 of 2009 seeking

cancellation of the gift deed and injunction regarding the

residential property at Shaswat Bungalows.

5.2.2Cruelty Complaint & 'B' Summary Report:

a)Lodged FIR C.R. No. I-9 of 2011 (under Sections 498A,

323, 114 IPC) against the petitioner and his family members.

b)Outcome: The Joint Police Commissioner (Crime

Branch, Ahmedabad) approved a Class 'B' Summary draft

report (dated 18.07.2011 / 21.07.2011), finding that the

complaint was false, frivolous, and lodged maliciously to

harass the petitioner and his family. The report also noted

that the complainant was residing separately to pursue illicit

relations.

5.2.3Domestic Violence & Maintenance Cases:

a)Filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 1538 of 2010

under the Domestic Violence Act. Maintenance awarded

initially at Rs.23,000/-, reduced on appeal to Rs.16,000/-,

and subsequently modified in Special Civil Application No.

586 of 2011 back to Rs.23,000/- per month.

Page 10 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

5.2.4Forgery Allegations (Satellite Police Station):

a)Lodged FIR C.R. No. I-69 of 2016 (under IPC Sections

420, 464, 467, 468, 472) alleging fraudulent opening of a joint

bank account. The petitioner was granted regular bail.

5.2.5High-Handed Dispossession & Threat:

a)Immediately following the petitioner's arrest on

14.06.2016 in the aforementioned FIR, the complainant wife

along with associates forcibly took illegal possession of the

petitioner's residential bungalow (House No. 24, Shaswat

Bungalows, Bodakdev), locked it, stationed security guards,

and physically threatened/assaulted the petitioner when he

attempted to enter his own home.

5.2.6Land Forgery Allegations (Kadi Police Station):

a)Lodged FIR C.R. No. I-147 of 2016 alleging land

forgery at Village: Vidaj. The petitioner was granted

anticipatory bail.

b)High Court Stay: In Criminal Misc. Application No.

31302 of 2016 (Coram: J.B. Pardiwala, J.), the Hon'ble High

Court vide order dated 05.12.2016 stayed further

investigation into the said FIR.

Page 11 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

6.Substantive Legal & Factual Grounds against ACB FIR

(C.R. No. I-1/2015):

6.1The petitioner seeks quashing of C.R. No. I-1 of 2015 (and the

consequential Charge-sheet / Special ACB Case No. 17/2021) on

the following grounds:

6.1.1Selective Fixation of the Check Period:

a)The Investigating Officer (I.O.) arbitrarily fixed the

"check period" from 01.01.2000 to 31.12.2008 (9 years).

b)The petitioner was appointed as a direct recruit

Mamlatdar on 10.02.1986. The I.O. completely ignored and

omitted the petitioner's legitimate accumulated income and

savings earned over nearly 14 years of prior public service

(10.02.1986 to 31.12.1999). Selecting a piecemeal period rather

than evaluating the entire tenure of service is impermissible

and legally unsustainable.

6.1.2Wrongful Inclusion of Independent Income & Assets of

the Estranged Wife:

a)In her foundational application dated 25.06.2013, the

wife explicitly admitted that she has been residing separately

since the year 2000 with her three children and bearing all

Page 12 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

their expenses independently.

b)Thus, she was not dependent on the petitioner from

2000 onwards. Imputing and tagging the independent

investments, assets, and financial transactions made by the

wife, her parents (father and mother), and her family as the

petitioner's income/assets is wholly baseless and contrary to

the prosecution's own documentary record.

6.1.3Disregard of Direct Affidavit Evidence regarding Third-

Party Gifts:

a)The I.O. ignored sworn affidavits executed by

independent third parties confirming voluntary monetary

gifts given out of love and affection to the wife and children:

i)Mr. Chintan Hiren Patel: Swore affidavits

(30.03.2004 and 26.03.2004) verifying gifts of Rs.1 Lakh

to Beenaben, Rs.1.50 lakh to daughter Dimple, and Rs.1

Lakh to son Paritosh.

ii)Ramilaben Hiren Patel & Geetaben: Swore

affidavits (26.03.2004) confirming monetary gifts given

to Beenaben and the children.

iii)Patel Hiren: Swore an affidavit confirming gifts

Page 13 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

of Rs.50,000/- to Asuna, Rs.1.50 lakh to Beenaben, and

Rs.1 Lakh to Paritosh.

iv)Since these affidavits form part of the

prosecution's own investigation record, the

prosecution cannot resile from its own evidence.

6.1.4Wrongful Inclusion of Unrelated Loans & Independent

Incomes of Major Sisters:

a)Unsubstantiated Loan Tagging: Loans legitimately

obtained by the petitioner from friends and relatives were

treated as the petitioner's own undisclosed income disguised

as gifts, purely on the basis of assumptions, surmises, and

conjectures of the I.O. without any contrary evidence.

b)Independent Incomes of Sisters: The I.O. tagged the

income and investments of the petitioner's two sisters

(Hansaben and Neelaben) as the petitioner's income. Both

sisters are adult, major, and independent individuals with

their own legal sources of income. Tagging their

independent assets on mere suspicion in the absence of

material on record is legally unsustainable.

6.1.5Flawed Mutual Fund Calculations & Recycling of Funds:

Page 14 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

a)UTI & Mutual Fund Re-investments:

i)The prosecution alleged UTI Mutual Fund

investments totalling Rs.47,27,828/-.

ii)The I.O. repeatedly counted the recycling and re-

investment of the same underlying funds/matured

proceeds. For example, an alleged investment of Rs.4

lakh on 05.12.2007 was never made, reducing actual

original investments to Rs.27 lakh. Failing to give

credit for fund rotation artificially inflated the asset

tally.

b)Reliance Mutual Funds Contradictions:

i)The I.O. made contradictory assertions alleging

an investment of Rs.47 lakh versus an actual

investment of Rs.30 lakh, demonstrating a casual and

careless approach.

c)Property Valuation & Unilateral Banakhats:

i)Regarding Naroda G.I.D.C. Plot No. 25/7/B,

independent Banakhats (Agreements to Sell) executed

unilaterally by the complainant wife with third parties

(Mr. Gokulesh Patel and Tamanna Developers) were

Page 15 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

wrongly entangled into the petitioner's asset

calculations.

7.Legal Submissions under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:

7.1Section 13(1)(e) r/w. Section 13(2) requires proof that a

public servant (or any person on his behalf) is in possession of

pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known

sources of income which cannot be satisfactorily accounted for.

7.2None of the essential ingredients of Sections 13(1)(e) and

13(2) are satisfied in this case. When the arbitrarily omitted past

service income, recycled investments, third-party gifts backed by

affidavits, legitimate loans, and independent assets of the

estranged wife and major sisters are properly credited/excluded,

no disproportionate assets remain.

7.3The FIR is an offshoot of personal malice lodged with

ulterior motives to settle private scores, constituting a gross abuse

of the process of law and Court.

7.4Investigation & Delay: The FIR was registered on

06.01.2015 for the check period 01.01.2000 to 31.12.2008. The

accused was arrested on 28.10.2020, and the final report under

Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed thereafter in 2020—a delay of nearly

Page 16 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

six years in an investigation resting entirely on documentary

evidence.

7.5Contradictory Computations (FIR vs. Charge-Sheet):

7.5.1FIR Computation: Alleges lawful income of Rs.48,86,807/-

against investment/expenditure of Rs.1,53,05,687/-, yielding

disproportionate assets of Rs.1,04,18,880/- (213.08%).

7.5.2Charge-Sheet Computation:

a)Annexure-A (Assets before check period):

Rs.17,92,495/-.

b)Annexure-B (Assets at the end of check period):

Rs.2,93,94,113/-.

c)Annexure-C (Income credited): Rs.50,94,739/-.

d)Annexure-D (Expenditure): Rs.7,19,195/-.

e)Investments during check period (B minus A):

Rs.2,76,01,618/-.

f)Savings (C minus D): Rs.43,75,544/-.

g)Disproportionate Assets: Rs.2,32,26,074/- (455.88%).

7.5.3Arbitrary Doubling: The alleged disproportion more than

doubled between the FIR and Charge-sheet for the exact same

check period, proving that the figures are conjectural estimates

arrived at by choice of accounting method rather than factual

Page 17 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

determination.

8.ANALYSIS OF INCOME COMPUTATION

(STATEMENT-C):

8.1.1The Investigating Officer (I.O.) credited only six heads of

income, totalling Rs.50,94,739/-:

Head of Income (Statement-C)

Name /

Person

Credited

Amount

(Rs.)

Salary Savings (Gross salary

Rs.24,71,271 less fixed deductions

Rs.10,15,541 = Rs.14,55,730; + D.A.

diff. Rs.7,466 = Rs.14,63,197; less 30%

notional household exp.)

Kamleshbhai

Goradiya

10,24,378/-

G.P.F. Withdrawals (2004 to 2008)

Kamleshbhai

Goradiya

14,92,000/-

Agricultural Income (Wife's returns

2006–08 Rs.6,89,640 less arbitrary 30%

farming exp. = Rs.4,82,748; + Accused

return A.Y. 2007–08 Rs.3,08,723)

Kamleshbhai

& Binaben

7,91,471/-

Maturity of 3i Infotech Investment

(1999)

Kamleshbhai

& Binaben

1,20,045/-

Maturity of U.T.I. Mutual Fund (1995)

Kamleshbhai

Goradiya

54,945/-

Sale of Gold (Redemption of India

Gold Bonds 1993/1998; ~1,986 gm

sold to Maruti Bullion)

Kamleshbhai

Goradiya

16,11,900/-

Page 18 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

Head of Income (Statement-C)

Name /

Person

Credited

Amount

(Rs.)

Total Income Credited 50,94,739/-

8.1.2Fatal Omissions in Income Computation:

a)Refusal to Attribute Family Income: No independent

income whatsoever is attributed to the wife (Smt. Binaben)

beyond her IT returns (which were arbitrarily reduced by

30%), nor to the son (Paritosh), daughters, HUF, or relatives.

b)Asymmetrical Aggregation: While the I.O. refused to

credit the family's independent receipts, the I.O. aggregated

all assets standing in their names—including Binaben's

Franklin Templeton, Sundaram, Fidelity, and Reliance folios,

Central Bank/PNB Accounts, children's Kalupur Bank

accounts, HUF folios, and post-office deposits—against the

accused.

9.Treatment Of Sales Of Shares, Securities & Rotated Funds:

9.1The Charge-sheet record itself reveals multiple redemption

and sale events where proceeds were rotated back into new

instruments, which the I.O. completely ignored on the income

side:

Page 19 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

a)3i Infotech / ICICI Tax Saving Bonds: Investments

(1999–2003) matured between 2005 and 2008 receiving ~

Rs.2,05,100/- (Approx.); I.O. credited only Rs.1,20,045/- +

interest Rs.13,425/-.

b)IDBI Flexi bonds: Staged interest and principal

realizations during check period were ignored.

c)Franklin Templeton (6 Folios of Binaben): Aggregate

gross investments of Rs.24,50,000/- were counted as assets,

but the Rs.25,03,299/- received back on redemptions was

completely uncredited on the income side.

d)Sundaram Mutual Fund: Folio SBBNA was redeemed

at Rs.7,92,259/- and re-invested in the same folio within

months; total group realizations of Rs.15,85,283/78 were

omitted.

e)Fidelity Equity Fund: Binaben’s folios redeemed

Rs.2,15,293/- on 04.10.2005 plus further redemptions;

ignored as income.

f)UTI Mutual Fund: Periodic investments aggregating ~

Rs.31,00,000/- were counted as gross assets, but subsequent

redemptions/1995 maturity units (Rs.54,945/-) were barely

credited.

Page 20 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

g)Reliance Mutual Fund (Folio 40162399123): Gross

investments of Rs.31,00,000/- were counted, whereas

Statement-B itself records a net investment of only

Rs.20,00,000/- (reflecting Rs.11,00,000/- redeemed).

h)Government of India 8% Tax-Free Bonds (2003):

Periodic interest streams across Rs.27,84,000/- worth of

bonds were uncredited in Statement-C.

10.Cumulative Infirmities In Computation:

10.1Double Counting of Rotated Funds: The formula DA = (B -

A) - (C-D) counts every gross purchase as a fresh asset while

ignoring redemption inflows, effectively counting rotated money 2

to 3 times. Once redemption inflows are set off, the gross

investment figure of Rs.2,76,01,618/- collapses.

10.2Double Deduction of Household Expenses: A 30% notional

haircut was deducted upfront from gross salary in Statement-C,

and then actual household outgoings (electricity, education, travel,

municipal taxes) were debited again in Statement-D

(Rs.7,19,195/-).

10.3Arbitrary Farming Haircut: A 30% reduction was applied to

declared agricultural income accepted by Income Tax authorities

without any supporting material.

Page 21 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

10.4Exclusion of Family & HUF Money Trails: Refusal to credit

explained receipts (including Rs.53,07,007/- from Amreli relatives)

while aggregating their assets.

10.5Omission of Accruals: Total omission of interest, dividend,

and maturity accruals on over Rs.27.84 lakh of GOI bonds and

mutual fund folios.

11.The Amreli Money Trail (Rs.53,07,007/-):

11.1The prosecution’s own Charge-sheet documents explain the

receipt of funds from the accused's family in Amreli:

a)Trench 1 (Amreli Bank Accounts): Passbooks and

statements of Bharatbhai, Hetalben, Dakshaben,

Dalichandbhai, and Pushpaben Goradiya establish cash

deposits and substantial operational balances. Bharatbhai’s

signed statement confirms that family funds belonging to

him, his father Dalichandbhai, and mother Pushpaben were

pooled.

b)Trench 2 (Transfer to HUF & Binaben Folios): In 2007,

these family moneys were handed over for investment in

mutual funds under Smt. Binaben and Kamlesh Harilal

Goradiya HUF, supported by Powers of Attorney executed

by Dakshaben and Sonalben. The accused's statement

Page 22 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

quantifies these receipts at Rs.53,07,007/-.

c)Trench 3 (Destination Folios): Statement-B corroborates

that these funds went directly into UTI and Reliance

HUF/Binaben folios. The I.O. counted these destination

folios as unexplained assets of the accused while completely

ignoring the family's source statements and bank trail.

12.Crux of the Grounds For Quashing The Fir And Charge-

Sheet:

12.1Arithmetical Collapse on Prosecution's Own Documents:

Taking the Charge-sheet at its highest, the computation fails on its

face once redemption inflows and fund rotation documented by

RTA replies (Book-4) are set off.

12.2Disregard of Furnished Explanations: The I.O. failed to

consider the accused’s detailed statements (dated 02.10.2020,

08.10.2020, and 18.10.2020) and supporting documentary proof

(bank statements, POAs, gift affidavits) already forming part of the

Charge-sheet.

12.3Illegality of Asymmetrical Aggregation: Aggregating assets

of the wife, children, HUF, sisters, and parents-in-law without

attributing their independent receipts or arraying them as

accused/co-conspirators vitiates the entire computation.

Page 23 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

12.4Wild Discrepancy Betraying Non-Application of Mind: The

unexplained jump in alleged disproportion from 213% in the FIR

to 455% in the Charge-sheet for the exact same check period

demonstrates that the figures are purely conjectural.

12.5Prejudicial Delay: Unexplained delay of nearly six years

between the FIR (2015) and Charge-sheet (2020) in a purely

document-based case causes severe prejudice.

13.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Rohan

Shah would submit that a strong prima-facie case is made out

against the petitioner. The details of calculations as canvassed can

be gone only during Trial and that too also by trial Court since this

Court is not to conduct Mini Trial at the stage of quashing which is

not permissible as per settled law.

14.It is further argued that the persons from whom the loan as

well as amount for investment is taken is in a particular period of

time and that even gifts received are in a particular period and that

the modus oprendi of the petitioner is reflected from the details

mentioned in the Charge-sheet. That all the transactions by the

persons form whom either loan is taken or is taken as loan have

deposited a huge sum of cash in equal instalments and then

transferred the said amount in the account of petitioner/wife and

that said amount is also given back in cash for which there is no

account. Thus, it is argued that when a person having a meagre

Page 24 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

salary has amassed huge amount of money which is unaccounted

and for which there is no explanation coming forth and that to also

does not inspire confidence is as much as the period of receipt of

amount from various persons are not so financially well to do so as

to lend such a huge amount either as loan or either as an amount

for investment on their behalf and that the petitioner name is also

reflecting in Bank account as nominee which reflects mens rea and

has thus argued to reject the petition.

15.It is further argued that merely because some investments

are in the name of wife or other relatives it cannot be said that the

said amount is earned by the petitioner and that the argument that

wife is living separately and maintaining his children and

therefore properties in the name of wife cannot be consider after

her living separately cannot be looked in to at the very nascent

stage since these aspects are defence and can be tested only after

full fledge trial where after examination and cross examination the

trial Court will test the same on the settled principles of Indian

Evidence Act and presumptions under the PC Act and hence

argued reject the petition.

16.The State placed heavy reliance upon the decisions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in:

16.1State of CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi & Anr.,

(2021) 18 SCC 135; and

Page 25 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

16.2State of Chhattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh & Anr., (2023) 6

SCC 559, to contend that where the Charge-sheet/FIR discloses

prima facie ingredients of disproportionate assets, the High Court

ought not to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

17. In response to the precedents cited by the State, learned

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that both Thommandru

Hannah Vijayalakshmi (supra) and Aman Kumar Singh (supra)

were rendered in the context of quashing an FIR at the preliminary

stage of investigation, where the investigating agency had not yet

evaluated the complete record. In the present case, the

investigation is complete, a full Charge-sheet comprising all

documentary evidence has been filed, and the patent arithmetical

absurdity and non-application of mind appear on the face of the

prosecution's own Charge-sheet documents without requiring any

external defence evidence.

18.ANALYSIS:

18.1This Court has given meticulous consideration to the rival

submissions, the Charge-sheet compilation, and the settled legal

principles governing Section 482 Cr.P.C. Each contention raised by

the petitioner is dealt with below:

18.2Contention 1: Matrimonial Malice, Serial Litigations & 'B'

Summary Report:

Page 26 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

18.2.1 Petitioner's Argument: The FIR is tainted with personal

malice arising out of marital discord, and prior complaints lodged

by the wife were found false.

18.2.2 Finding: It is a well-settled principle of criminal

jurisprudence, that personal malice or animus on the part of an

informant/complainant is irrelevant if the material gathered

during investigation independently discloses the commission of a

cognizable offence.

18.2.3 While matrimonial litigations and the filing of a 'B'

Summary in a Section 498A IPC case are matters of record, the

present prosecution is under the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988. Once the investigating agency conducted an independent

inquiry and placed objective documentary evidence on record

regarding financial transactions, bank deposits, and property

acquisitions, the initial motive of the informant recedes into the

background. Private malice cannot eclipse public accountability

under corruption law. Hence, this contention is rejected.

18.3Contention 2: Arbitrary Fixation of Check Period (2000–

2008):

18.3.1 Petitioner's Argument: The I.O. selected a piecemeal 9-year

check period, ignoring 14 years of prior public service (1986–1999)

and accumulated savings.

Page 27 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

18.3.2 Finding: The selection of a check period is within the lawful

domain of the investigating agency based on the period during

which maximum disproportionate acquisitions are suspected to

have occurred. In State of Maharashtra v. Pollonji Darabshaw

Mistry, reported in 1987 Supp SCC 379, Apex Court held that the

choice of the period must necessarily be determined by the

allegations of fact on which the prosecution is founded and rests.

However, the period must be such as to enable a true and

comprehensive picture of the known sources of income and the

pecuniary resources and property in possession of by the public-

servant either by himself or through any other person on his

behalf, which are alleged to be so disproportionate. In the facts and

circumstances of a case, a ten year period cannot be said to be

incapable of yielding such a true and comprehensive picture.

18.3.3 If the petitioner asserts that he possessed accumulated

savings from his service prior to 01.01.2000, the burden lies

squarely upon him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to

establish the exact quantum of such prior savings brought forward

into the check period. This requires leading evidence before the

trial Court. The selection of a 9-year check period does not per se

vitiate the Charge-sheet.

19.Contention 3: Accounting Absurdities, Fund Rotations &

Non-Crediting of Redemption:

Page 28 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

19.1Petitioner's Argument: The Charge-sheet counts gross

mutual fund purchases as assets without crediting redemption

inflows, leading to double/triple counting of rotated funds.

19.2Finding: This Court acknowledges that the petitioner has

presented an elaborate working analysis regarding mutual fund

folios (Franklin Templeton, Sundaram, Reliance, UTI) and bond

redemptions. However, determining whether a specific financial

transaction represents "fresh investment" or "rotated capital" is a

matter of complex accounting evidence.

19.2.1 In State of CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi &

Anr., (2021) 18 SCC 135, the Supreme Court specifically held that

the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot perform

accounting reconciliation, adjust financial ledgers, or act as an

auditor.

19.2.3 Whether redemption proceeds were actually re-invested or

diverted elsewhere, and whether cash deposits prior to

transactions constituted rotated money or unaccounted cash, are

disputed factual issues. The learned APP has pointed out that

equal cash installments were deposited in bank accounts prior to

these investments. Therefore, setting off these amounts without

full cross-examination of bank officers and financial experts would

amount to conducting an impermissible "mini-trial."

Page 29 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

20.Contention 4: Asymmetrical Aggregation of Family/Sisters'

Assets vs. Exclusion of Income & Gifts:

20.1Petitioner's Argument: Assets of the estranged wife, major

independent sisters, and in-laws were aggregated against the

petitioner, while their independent sources and third-party gift

affidavits were ignored.

20.2Finding: Under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, the

prosecution is entitled to include assets held by a public servant or

by any person on his behalf. In P. Nallammal v. State, (1999) 6 SCC

559, the Supreme Court held that the offense of acquiring and

possessing disproportionate assets under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC

Act can be abetted by non-public servants under Section 109 of the

IPC.

20.3The defence that the wife lived separately, that sisters had

independent means, or that third parties provided genuine gifts

supported by affidavits are statutory defences under Section 13(1)

(e). Sworn affidavits executed by private individuals do not

automatically carry conclusive evidentiary weight without the

witnesses stepping into the witness box to face cross-examination.

The validity of these gifts and the financial capacity of the donors

must be tested at trial, though such affidavits are part of the

Charge-sheet.

Page 30 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

21.Contention 5: Double Haircut on Household Expenses:

21.1Petitioner's Argument: Deducting a 30% haircut from salary

savings in Statement-C while debited actual household expenses

in Statement-D constitutes double deduction.

21.2Finding: While Statement-C reflects a 30% deduction from

salary and Statement-D lists specific outgoings (electricity,

education, municipal taxes), this represents a conflict in

expenditure estimation methods. A perusal of the Charge-sheet

methodology reveals that the 30% notional deduction applied in

Statement-C represents a standardized baseline estimate for un-

receipted daily living expenses (such as food, kitchen running

costs, and daily cash outlays) where specific bills are unavailable.

Conversely, Statement-D specifically enumerates verified, bank-

transacted, or documentary expenditure items such as institutional

education fees, municipal property taxes, electricity utility

payments, and travel expenses. Whether the 30% standard haircut

in Statement-C was intended to subsume the specific municipal

and educational outgoings listed in Statement-D, or whether they

constitute two distinct categories of expenditure, is a pure question

of accounting fact and evidence. Alleged overlaps or disputes

regarding notional vs. actual expenditure estimates do not render

the Charge-sheet void ab initio. Instead, they constitute matters of

defence that the accused public servant can challenge during the

cross-examination of the Investigating Officer or during the

Page 31 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

framing of charge/trial before the Special Court.

22.Contention 6: Inapplicability of Apex Court Precedents at

the Charge-Sheet Stage:

22.1Petitioner's Argument: Thommandru Hannah

Vijayalakshmi (supra) and Aman Kumar Singh (supra) involved

FIR quashing, whereas here a full Charge-sheet has been filed

therefore, facts of the present stands on different footing.

22.2Finding: The distinction sought to be drawn by the

petitioner is legally untenable. The principle that the High Court

shall not conduct a mini-trial or appreciate evidence applies with

equal, if not greater, force after a Charge-sheet is filed.

22.2.1 Once the investigating agency compiles the final report

under Section 173 Cr.P.C. along with witness statements and

documentary evidence, the statutory venue for evaluating whether

a prima facie case exists is the trial Court (at the stage of

considering discharge under Section 227 or Section 239 Cr.P.C.).

The filing of a Charge-sheet does not widen the narrow portal of

Section 482 Cr.P.C. to permit a full-scale appreciation of evidence.

23.Contention 7: Uncredited Third-Party Gift Affidavits

(Chintan Patel, Ramilaben, Geetaben, Hiren Patel):

Page 32 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

23.1Petitioner's Argument: The Investigating Officer completely

ignored sworn affidavits executed on 26.03.2004 and 30.03.2004 by

Chintan Hiren Patel, Ramilaben Hiren Patel, Geetaben, and Patel

Hiren confirming voluntary monetary gifts given out of love and

affection to Smt. Beenaben and the children.

23.2Finding: Under Indian criminal jurisprudence, an affidavit

sworn by a private individual during a police investigation does

not possess statutory sanctity or conclusive evidentiary value

unless the maker of the affidavit enters the witness box during

trial, deposes on oath, and successfully withstands cross-

examination. The Apex Court in the case of Sudha Devi v.

M.P.Narayanan and Others reported in (1988) 3 Supreme Court

Cases 366, observed that: “......Besides, affidavits are not included in

the definition of 'evidence' in S. 3 of the Evidence Act and can be used as

evidence only if for sufficient reason court passes an order under Order

XIX, Rules 1 or 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure...” Though, this

judgement is in reference to civil matter the law that affidavits are

not included in definition of evidence holds good even for criminal

matters.

23.2.1 Whether these gifts were genuine acts of love and affection

or colourable devices to mask unaccounted funds is a disputed

question of fact. The prosecution is not legally bound to accept

exculpatory affidavits collected during investigation without

testing their veracity at trial. Hence, non-crediting of private gift

Page 33 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

affidavits at the Charge-sheet stage does not justify quashing.

24.Contention 8: Micro-Breakdown of Mutual Fund

Redemptions & Bond Rotation:

24.1Petitioner's Argument: Specific ledger-level reconciliation

demonstrates that gross investments (e.g., Rs.24.5 lakh in Franklin

Templeton, Rs.11 lakh redeemed in Reliance, and Sundaram

SBBNA redemptions of Rs.7.92 lakh) were counted twice without

crediting redemption inflows.

24.2Finding: This submission represents a micro-level

accounting audit. As laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

State of CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, reported in

(2021) 18 SCC 135, the High Court exercising jurisdiction under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. is neither an auditor nor an appellate

accounting forum.

24.2.1 Verifying whether a specific redemption cheque was re-

invested into the exact same folio or diverted elsewhere requires

detailed examination of bank clearing scrolls, ledger statements,

and oral testimony—an exercise strictly reserved for a full-fledged

trial.

25.Contention 9: The Amreli Money Trail (Trench 1, 2, 3 &

Identity Discrepancy "Kansara" vs. "Goradiya"):

Page 34 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

25.1Petitioner's Argument: The cash flow from Amreli accounts

(passbooks of Bharatbhai, Hetalben, Dakshaben, Dalichandbhai,

Pushpaben), pooled family funds (Rs.53,07,007/-), and Powers of

Attorney were ignored, and there exists a discrepancy in surnames

("Kansara" vs. "Goradiya").

25.2Finding: The prosecution's case is that these cash deposits

and transfers were part of a coordinated modus operandi

involving cash re-routing. The legitimacy and financial capacity of

the Amreli relatives to generate over Rs.53 lakh in cash/deposits

must be tested through oral and documentary evidence at trial

inasmuch as, deposit for amount not exceeding Rs.49,000/- per

transaction in cash is a camouflage to avoid the rigours of Income-

Tax.

25.2.1 The discrepancy in surname ("Kansara" vs. "Goradiya") is a

typographical or identity issue appearing in records, which under

Section 465 Cr.P.C. is curable during trial and does not vitiate the

substratum of the Charge-sheet.

26.Contention 10: Wild Variance in Calculations (FIR Rs.1.04

Cr vs. Charge-Sheet Rs.2.32 Cr / 213% to 455%):

26.1Petitioner's Argument: The alleged disproportionate assets

more than doubled between the FIR and the Charge-sheet for the

exact same check period, proving that the figures are purely

Page 35 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

conjectural.

26.2Finding: An FIR is only an initiation of a criminal law

mechanism and is not an exhaustive accounting document. As an

investigation progresses, collection of bank statements, replies,

and deeper asset identification naturally leads to a more

comprehensive quantification of assets. An upward revision in the

final Charge-sheet computation reflects the culmination of a

detailed probe rather than an inherent legal illegality. A difference

between FIR estimates and Charge-sheet figures is not a ground

for quashing. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Amit

Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Anr. reported in AIROnline 2012

SC 668 : (2012) 9 SCC 460 that even where the Charge-sheet under

section 173(2) of the Code suffers from fundamental legal defects,

the Court may be very well within its jurisdiction to frame a

charge.

27.Contention 11: Six-Year Investigation Delay (2015 to 2020):

27.1Petitioner's Argument: There was an unexplained delay of

nearly six years between the registration of the FIR (06.01.2015)

and the filing of the Charge-sheet (2020) in a purely document-

based case.

27.2Finding: While delay is a relevant factor, in complex

economic offences and disproportionate assets cases involving

Page 36 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

voluminous banking records, multi-city asset tracing, and financial

analysis, a prolonged investigation period does not automatically

cause irremediable prejudice or invalidate the Charge-sheet.

27.3No statutory bar of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is

attracted, as the offences under the P.C. Act carry imprisonment

exceeding three years. Prejudice caused by delay, if any, is a

ground to seek an expeditious trial before the Special Court, not

quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

28.In view of the detailed discussion above, this Court finds

that the Charge-sheet and accompanying material disclose a prima

facie case for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w.

Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In exercise

of its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS, 2023, this

Court is not required to hold a full-fledged inquiry or to appreciate

evidence collected by the investigating agency to find out whether

the case would result into acquittal or conviction. Same has to be

left to the trial Court and the trial should be allowed to reach its

logical conclusion.

28.1In the instant case, the factual foundation of the offence with

which the petitioner has been charged has been laid down in the

Charge-sheet. This Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the

genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein and

same has to be left to be decided by the trial Court in the trial. The

Page 37 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

petitioner shall be able to raise all his defences before the trial

Court and the trial Court shall have the benefit of going through

and marshalling the evidence on record and of considering the

case of both sides before coming to a conclusion of guilt or

otherwise of the petitioner in the trial. This Court cannot embark

into the same journey as it cannot sit on a mini-trial in exercise of

its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS, 2023. This Court is of considered opinion

that this is not an exceptional case where non-interference would

result in miscarriage of justice.

28.2All the contentions raised by the petitioner—including fund

rotations, redemption credits, check period selection, independent

family incomes, and gift affidavits—are left open to be raised as

defences before the learned trial Court. The trial Court shall

adjudicate these issues on their own merits based on the evidence

adduced during trial, uninfluenced by any observations made in

this judgment.

29.The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. The learned Special Judge

(ACB), Ahmedabad is directed to proceed with Special ACB Case

No. 17/2021 in accordance with law. Rule is discharged. Interim

relief, if any, stands vacated.

Page 38 of 39

R/CR.MA/33697/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026

(GJHC240557732016)

29.1Pending applications shall stand disposed in view of

dismissal of the main application.

[ P. M. Raval, J. ]

hiren/16tss211026D

Page 39 of 39