A Report on

DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS CASES REVIEWED

BY ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU

(A Report submitted in the partial fulfillment of two year full time MBA in Finance with
Specialization in Forensic Accounting)

Submitted By:

SAGAR MANGHWANI

(000MTMBFA1920013)

(Batch: 2019-2021)

Submitted To:

Faculty of Management,

Institute of Management and Training

National Forensic Sciences University,

Gandhinagar.

Faculty Guide Director

Prof. Aarya Anil Dr. S. O. Junare
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and Formest I would like to thanks to the God for the showers of blessings throughout my
work to complete successfully.

I have taken efforts in this project. However, it would not have been possible without the kind
support and help of many individuals and organizations. I would like to extend my sincere thanks
to all of them.

I am thankful to my Institute of Management and Training, National Forensic Sciences

University for giving me this opportunity to represent my ability. I am heartily thankful to the
Director, IMT, and NFSU for his constant support and guidance.

I am deeply indebted and would like to express my gratitude to my guide Prof. Aarya Anil,
Associate Professor, IMT, GFSU for his efforts, guidance and support in the thesis work. She has
devoted significant amount of his experience and insight, it would have been very difficult to do
qualitative work.

I am heartily thankful to officials Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ahmedabad for giving me chance to

work and to express myself in terms of skill and knowledge and the members of Anti-Corruption
Bureau, Ahmedabad for their kind co- operation and encouragement which help in completion of
this project.

I also express thanks to my classmates and colleagues who came forward to help me in every
way at any time in this thesis.

Last but not least, I would like to acknowledge the ongoing support of my parents and my family
members, whose patience and encouragement during these long days and night have been
paramount in making this thesis a reality.

Sagar Manghwani
 Institute of Management and Training

National Forensic Sciences University

Gandhinagar, Gujarat

STUDENT DECLARATION

I Sagar manghwani (000MTMBFA1920013) of batch 2019-2021, a full time Bonafide student

of the Final Year of MBA Finance with Specialization in Forensic Accounting, Institute of
Management, National Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, hereby declare that
the presented report of internship titled “Disproportionate assets cases reviewed by Anti-
corruption bureau” is uniquely prepared by me under the faculty guidance of Prof. Aarya
Anil and the director of ACB Ahmedabad IPS Keshav Kumar after the completion of three
months work at Anti-Corruption Bureau ,Ahmedabad .

I also confirm that the report is only prepared for my academic requirement for the award of the
degree of Master Of Business Administration in Finance With Specialization in Forensic
Accounting not for any other purpose. It might not be used with the interest of opposite party of
the company.

Sagar
Manghwani,
000MTMBFA1920013
Batch: 2019-2021
MBA in Finance with specialization in Forensic Accounting
Institute of Management and Training
National Forensic Science University
Gandhinagar, Gujarat
 Institute of Management and Training

National Forensic Sciences University

Gandhinagar, Gujarat

CERTICATE FROM FACULTY GUIDE

This is to certify that Sagar Manghwani (000MTMBFA1920013), a Student of MBA in

Finance with Specialization in Forensic Accounting, IMT, NFSU has worked under my guidance
and supervision. This internship project report has the requisite standard and to the best of our
knowledge. No part of it has been reproduced from any other internship project report .

Prof. Aarya Anil,

Faculty Guide,

Institute Of Management and Training,

National Forensic Sciences Univrsity,

Gandhinagar, Gujarat
 Executive Summary

Disproportionate assets is a term used in India to describe a situation where an individual's net economic
assets significantly exceed the assets he or she should possess after accounting for the assets that he or she
previously held and all legal sources of income. Disproportionate assets cases are investigated by the CBI
Central Bureau of Investigation and the Income Tax Department.

The concept is extensively used to initiate corruption investigations against public servants and elected
politicians in India, and has been codified in several pieces of national- and state-level legislation, including
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

On 29 September 2014, J Jayalalithaa, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, was convicted of disproportionate
assets and was sentenced to jail for four years. This made Jayalalithaa the first sitting chief minister in India
to be removed from office due to corruption charges.She was later acquitted on 11 May 2015 by the
Karnataka High Court.On 14 February 2017, the Supreme Court of India over-ruled the Karnataka High
Court. Sasikala and the other accused were convicted and sentenced to four years' imprisonment, as well as
being fined ₹10 crore (equivalent to ₹11 crore or US$1.6 million in 2019) each. The case against
Jayalalithaa was abated because she had died but fines were levied on her properties.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

NO. TOPIC
Executive Summary
1 Introduction
i. Disproportionate assets

ii. Corruption

iii. Corruption Prevention

iv. Prevention of corruption act

v. Calculation of disproportionate assets

vi. Anti-Corruption Bureau

vii. Departments in ACB

viii. Powers , duties and responsibilities

ix. Citizen’s Duties

x. Goal of Anti Corruption Bureau

xi. Prevention of Corruption Act 2018

xii. Disproportionate assets cases currently ACB

Gujarat is investigating.

xiii. Refrences
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
 Disproportionate Assets

 Generic meaning of the word “Disproportionate Assets” means undisclosed wealth.

When a person curtails his or her undisclosed possessions and he or she is trapped in
the eye of law such person is executed as per the law of the land under the head
Disproportionate Asset case. This is a very common temperament and outlook of the
person to evade or avoid tax which is a fault in the eye of law. In India tax evaders or
avoiders are prosecuted by the Income Tax Department and Central Bureau of
Investigation. Recently due to Demonetization the Law for the evaders has turned
firm in the land of India.

 It is necessary to draw attention in this scenario that people of India is unaware of the
benefits of taxation system. The basic ideology of the people is that our earnings are
ours and it is non-sense to pay to the government. Another picture is that some people
are receiving money from illegal sources and it is not possible to show the same in the
Income Tax file or disclose it. As a consequence of it such people are holding
disproportionate assets.
 There are several cases raised before the court in this regard. Recent case is of
AIADMK chief V.K. Sasikala who is punished by the Supreme Court of India in the
disproportionate asset case. There are several political person and high profile people
who were punished by the Law for the same offense. Some of the prominent person
who were held guilty for the disproportionate assets cases are “Jayalalitha”, “Lalu
Prasad Yadav”, “A.Raja”, “Sharad Pawar”, “Karunanidhi” and many more
uncountable personalities are present in the list in this regard.

 However “Disproportionate Assets” is an actionable but not a crime until and unless it
proved that it is obtained by illegal means as proclaimed by the Supreme Court of
India. If it is not occupied through illegal sources it will stay as an inference only said
by the bench of P.C. Ghosh and Amitava Roy in Supreme Court of India.

 It is to be inferred that awareness mechanism must be initiated among the people to

prevent such practices. Although not only government but also people must develop
legal and moral conscience to give up this practices. We the people of India must keep
in psyche that our motion (good or bad) is connected with the prospect of our nation.
Corruption
 Corruption is dishonest behavior by those in positions of power, such as managers or
government officials. Corruption can include giving or accepting bribes or
inappropriate gifts, double-dealing, under-the-table transactions, manipulating
elections, diverting funds, laundering money, and defrauding investors. One example
of corruption in the world of finance would be an investment manager who is actually
running a Ponzi scheme.

 There are many situations in which a person can be considered corrupt. In the
financial services industry, chartered financial analysts and other financial
professionals are required to adhere to a code of ethics and avoid situations that could
create a conflict of interest. Penalties for being found guilty of corruption include
fines, imprisonment, and a damaged reputation. Engaging in corrupt behavior may
have negative long-lasting effects for an organization. In 2015, five prominent
investment banks were fined a cumulative total of approximately $5.5 billion for
rigging the foreign exchange market between 2007 and 2013.1

 When corruption occurs within an organization, unflattering media coverage typically

follows, which may result in customers losing trust in the company's business
practices and products. A comprehensive public relations campaign is often required
to limit reputational damage and restore trust. This requires valuable resources, such
as time and money, which may result in other critical areas of the organization being
deprived. As a result, inefficiencies that lead to financial losses can occur.
Corruption Prevention

 Corruption unchecked can increase criminal activity and organized crime in the
community. A number of steps can, however, help to manage corruption. There must
be a strong focus on education, which must reinforce best business practices, and alert
managers and employees where to look for corruption. This can be achieved by
introducing mandatory education such as anti-money laundering (AML) courses.
Senior executives and management must set a strong culture of honesty and integrity
by leading by example.

 Corruption is likely to be reduced with accountability mechanisms in place; this in

turn is likely to reinforce a culture that fosters strong ethical behavior while holding
those to account who violate the norms. Corruption can further be reduced by making
it easy to report, whether by managers, employees, suppliers, and customers. A robust
control environment also reduces the risk of corruption as do thorough background
checks before hiring or promoting employees.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

 The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (No. 49 of 1988) is an Act of the Parliament
of India enacted to combat corruption in government agencies and public sector
businesses in India.

 This law defines who a public servant is and punishes public servants involved in
corruption or bribery. It also punishes anyone who helps him or her commit the crime
corruption or bribery.
 To understand the intricacies involved with respect to the subject
matter, this paper has been divided into nine parts

 When are assets disproportionate.

 What should be the punishment for an offence punishable u/s 13(1) of the PC Act
after the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013?

 How did Sasikala get convicted for disproportionate assets.

 What will happen after the case? How will the govt recover the assets.

 What happens to his/her job.

 What type of evidence are accepted by the courts against the accused.

 Holding disproportionate assets below 10%, is it condonable.

 What percentage of assets in excess would fall under the category of disproportionate
assets.

 Whether the police has the power to seize property including Bank Account of
accused or any of his relatives u/s 102 of CrPC.
Provisions

The act consists of 5 chapters spread across 31 sections.

Chapter II: Preliminary

This chapter contains sections describing title, territorial extent, basic definitions, etc. Two of
the main definitions are "public servant" and "undue advantage". Following are some
sections:

Section 3: Appointment of special Judges

Power To Appoint Special Judges: The Central and the State Government is empowered to
appoint Special Judges by placing a Notification in the Official Gazette, to try the following
offences: · Any offence punishable under this Act. · Any conspiracy to commit or any
attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified under the Act. The
qualification for the Special Judge is that he should be or should have been a Session Judge
or an Additional Session Judge or Assistant Session Judge under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973

Section 4: Cases triable by special Judges

The offences punishable under this act can be tried by special Judges only. When trying any
case, the special Judge is empowered to try any offence other than an offence punishable
under this act, with which the accused may be charged at the same trial. It is recommended
that the special Judge should hold the trial daily.

Case Trial By Special Judges: Every offence mentioned in Section 3(1)shall be tried by the
Special Judge for the area within which it was committed. When trying any case, a Special
Judge may also try any offence other than what is specified in S. 3, which the accused may
be, under Cr.P.C. be charged at the same trial. The Special Judge has to hold the trial of an
offence on day-to-day basis. However, while complying with foretasted, it is to be seen that
the Cr.P.C. is not bifurcated.
Section 5: Procedure and powers of special Judge
The following are the powers of the Special Judge: He may take cognizance of the offences
without the accused being commissioned to him for trial. In trying the accused persons, shall
follow the procedure prescribed by the Cr.P.C. for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrate. he
may with a view to obtain the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or
indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence, tender pardon to such person provided that he
would make full and true disclosure of the whole circumstances within his knowledge or in
respect to any person related to the offence.

Except as for S. 2(1), the provisions of Cr.P.C. shall apply to the proceedings before a Special
Judge. Hence, the court of the Special Judge shall be deemed to be a Court of Session and the
person conducting a prosecution before a Special Judge shall be deemed to be a public
prosecutor. The provisions of secs. 326 and 475of the Cr.P.C. shall apply to the proceedings
before a Special Judge and for purpose of the said provisions, a Special Judge shall be
deemed to be a magistrate.

A Special Judge may pass a sentence authorized by law for the punishment of the offence of
which a person is convicted. A Special Judge, while trying any offence punishable under the
Act, shall exercise all powers and functions exercised by a District Judge under the Criminal
Law Amendment Ordinance,1944.
Power to try summarily: Where a Special Judge tries any offence specified in Sec. 3(1),
alleged to have been committed by a public servant in relation to the contravention of any
special order referred to in Sec.12-A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or all orders
referred to in sub-section (2)(a) of that section then the special judge shall try the offence in a
summarily way and the provisions of s. 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said code shall as
far as may be apply to such trial. Provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary
trial under this section this shall be lawful for the Special Judge to pass a sentence of
imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

However, when at the commencement of or in the course of a summary trial it appears to the
Special Judge that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year may have to be passed or it is undesirable to try the case summarily, the
Special judge shall record all order to that effect and thereafter recall any witnesses who may
have been examined and proceed to hear and re-hear the case in accordance with the
procedure prescribed by the said code for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates. Moreover,
there shall be no appeal by a convicted person in any case tried summarily under this section
in which the Special Judge passes a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding one month and
of fine not exceeding Rs. 2000.
Chapter III: Offences and penalties
The following are the offences under the PCA along with their punishments:- Obtaining an
undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty
improperly or dishonestly, etc., and if the public servant is found guilty, he shall be
punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than 3 years but which may extend to 5
years and shall also be liable to fine.

Taking gratification in order to influence public servant, by corrupt or illegal means, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than three year but which
may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Taking gratification, for exercise of personal influence with public servant shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which
may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.

Abetment by public servant of offences defined in Section 8 or 9, shall be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five
years and shall also be liable to fine.

Public servant obtaining valuable thing without consideration from person concerned in
proceeding or business transacted by such public servant, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five
years and shall also be liable to fine.

Punishment for abetment of offences defined in Section 7 or 11 shall be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five
years and shall also be liable to fine.

Any public servant, who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to 7
years and shall also be liable to fine.

Habitual committing of offence under Section 8, 9 and 12 shall be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than two years but which may extend to 7
years and shall also be liable to fine.
Chapter IV: Investigation
Investigation shall be done by a police officer not below the rank of:

In case of Delhi, of an Inspector of Police.

In metropolitan areas, of an Assistant Commissioner of Police.
Elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or an officer of equivalent rank shall
investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the order of a Metropolitan
Magistrate or a magistrate of first class, or make any arrest therefore without a warrant.

If a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorized by the State
Government in this behalf by general or special order, he may investigate such offence
without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of First class or make arrest
therefor without a warrant.

Provided further that an offence referred to sec 13.1.e shall not be investigated without the
order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. Any such
investigation without the order of a SP or above rank will be dismissed see Umesh Kumar
Choubey vs State of Madhya Pradesh.
Amendment Act 2018
As the Prevention of Corruption Act saw limited success in preventing corruption in
Government departments and prosecuting and punishing public servants involved in corrupt
practices, an amendment was enacted (Amendment Act) and brought into force on 26 July
2018. The Amendment Act attempted to bring the Prevention of Corruption Act in line with
United Nations Convention against Corruption 2005, which was ratified by India in 2011

Highlights of the Amendment

 Definition of Undue Advantage

The terms “gratification other than legal remuneration” and “valuable thing” are being
replaced by the term “undue advantage”. The bill, therefore, redefines the offense of
accepting bribes as “obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person an
undue advantage, intending that in consequence a public duty would be performed
improperly or dishonestly, either by himself or by another public servant is guilty of
offense under section 7 and shall be imprisoned for a term of 3 to 7 years.[7]

 Offering of Bribes by Person/Commercial Organization

In addition to treating bribe-giving as an offense, section 9 specifically provides for an
offense by a commercial organization if any person associated with the commercial
organization gives or promises to give any undue advantage to a public servant to
obtain or retain business or an advantage in conduct of business. Such a
person/commercial organization shall be punishable with a fine, quantum of which is
not prescribed in the act.

 Redefining Criminal Misconduct

The offense of criminal misconduct specified in section 13 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, is being substituted by a new section restricting the criminal
misconduct to dishonest or fraudulent misappropriation of any property entrusted to
the public servant or if the public servant intentionally enriches himself illicitly during
the period of his office. Thus the scope of criminal misconduct has been narrowed in
the amendment and the threshold to establish the offense has been increased.[9]
 Prior Sanction of Appropriate Government for Investigation and Prosecution
The amendment extends the protection of requirement of prior approval to
investigation prior to prosecution. Under the new Section 17A, except when a public
official is caught ‘redhanded', the police cannot begin a probe, without the approval of
the relevant authority, of any public official. Earlier, this was limited to protecting
joint secretaries and above. This universal inclusion provides a great deal of
protection to honest officials irrespective of their ranks or levels

 Forfeiture of Property
The new Section 18A also introduces a provision for special courts to confiscate and
attach the property acquired through corrupt practices.

 Time Frame for Trial

To ensure speedy justice, the Amendment Act now prescribes that the courts shall
endeavor to complete the trial within 2 (two) years. This period can be extended by 6
(six) months at a time and up to a maximum of 4 (four) years in aggregate subject to
proper reasons for the same being recorded.

 Enhancement of Punishment
Punishment has been increased from a minimum imprisonment term of 6 (six) months
to 3 (three) years, and from a maximum of 5 (five) years to 7 (seven) years, with or
without fine.[
Calculation of Disproportionate Assets
Anti-Corruption Bureau

The Anti-Corruption Bureau is a specialized agency tackling the problem of

corruption in various departments of the Government against Public Servants and
also Private Persons whoever abet the offences under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. The Bureau registers cases under the provisions of this Act. Besides
this,the Bureau conducts enquiries basing on the information/petitions received from
various agencies like Government, Vigilance Commission, Lokayukta etc.and also
on the information/petitions received by the Bureau from the public containing
specific and verifiable allegations of corruption against Public Servants.

This Bureau was established on January 2, 1961 and functions directly under the
administrative control of the General Administration Department Gujarat
Government. The Director General, who is a senior IPS officer of the rank of
DGP,heads the Bureau. He is assisted by One Additional Director (D.I.G rank) and
One Additional Director(D.I.G rank),One Special Additional Director(D.I.G rank) and
Six Joint Directors (3 Cadre SP's & 3 Non Cadre SP's ) Cadre, Two Additional
Supdt.,.of Police.

The Bureau is divided into 9 Ranges, in Gujarat. Each Range encompasses one or
more Districts. Each District is headed by One Deputy Supdt., of Police. The Bureau
is also having Additional S.Ps. in the Headquaters. The Bureau is having Technical
Officers like Engineers, Chartered Accountant, etc. It is also having legal officers to
tender advise on legal matters to conduct prosecution in Courts and Tribunal for
Disciplinary Proceedings.
The Bureau basically enforces the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. The Bureau has suo-moto powers to collect information, conduct enquiries
and register cases on Public Servants. The Bureau investigates Disproportionate
Assets Cases of Criminal misconduct and misappropriation. Apart from that the
Bureau also conducts enquiries in the form of Regular Enquiries, Discreet Enquiries
and also conducts Surprise Checks in areas of rampant corruption.

After completion of investigation and enquiries, a final report is sent to Government

through the Vigilance Commissioner who tenders his advice to the Government.
Depending on the merits of the case, the further course of action may be either to file
charges or to drop action. If the evidence is not enough for launching prosecution in
a case, the case is referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings,
Commissioner of Enquiries or to the Department concerned for taking further action
by dealing with the Public Servant on charges of misconduct, possessing
disproportionate Assets and violation A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964.  

For prosecution of a Public Servant the authority competent to remove him has to
accord sanction for prosecution.

Conviction in a court leads to dismissal of the convicted Public Servant, whereas in

departmental action the Public Servant is awarded a major punishment or a minor
punishment depending on the gravity of the delinquency under the A.P.C.S. (CCA)
Rules, 1991. Major punishment involves dismissal, removal, reduction in Rank,
withholding of increments with cumulative effect, cut or stoppage of pension for
retired employees, etc. Minor punishments are withholding of increments without
cumulative effect, censure, recorded warning
Major Functions of the Department

The Bureau conducts Investigation/Enquiries into the following types of allegations involving
Government Servants and Public Servants including those working in the Public Sector
Undertakings of the State Government.

 Criminal misconduct of Public Servants as defined in PC Act 1988.

 Dishonest or improper conduct or abuse of power by Public Servants.
 Gross dereliction of duty or negligence.
 Misappropriation of public funds.
 Amassment of wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income.
 Misuse of Public money or property.
 Preventive vigilance actions and activities.

Besides conducting investigation into Vigilance Cases, the Bureau also conducts
Vigilance Enquiries, Quick Verifications, Confidential Verifications and Surprise
Checks. The Bureau also collects intelligence report about corrupt officials and
maintains dossiers on them .
Vigilance Cases

Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau registers cases under the PC Act 1988 on finding prima
facie evidence of criminal misconduct by Public Servants, after conducting Vigilance
Enquiry/Confidential Verification/Surprise Check/Quick Verification and on receipt of
information of demand and acceptance of bribe by Public Servants. Vigilance Cases are
registered by the Unit Officers after getting sanction from the Director of the Bureau, based
on the evidence available. In Trap Cases, the Unit Officers are authorized to register Cases
Suo-moto. This Bureau also collects intelligence about corrupt officials and proceeds.

Vigilance Enquiries

The Bureau conducts Vigilance Enquiries (VE) into the matters referred to the Director for
enquiry by the Government. But the Bureau does not initiate Vigilance Enquiries suo motu
on complaints received directly by the Bureau. They are forwarded to the Government for
further orders. If at any stage during a Vigilance Enquiry conducted by the Bureau there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the public servant has committed an offence under the PC
Act, the Vigilance Enquiry is stopped at that stage and a crime case registered and
investigated after obtaining sanction from the Director.

Confidential Verifications

The Bureau shall collect intelligence on corruption and corrupt officials and process the
information with utmost confidentiality. The Director, VACB may order the conduct of
Confidential Verification on information or complaint received by the Bureau to ascertain
whether the allegations raised therein call for a formal enquiry (Vigilance Enquiry).
Confidential Verification will be done in complete secrecy without recording the statements
of witnesses or conducting other open field enquiries that may compromise its
confidentiality.
Quick Verifications

Government is the proper authority to order a Vigilance Enquiry. But very often Government
forward references to this Bureau for examination and report without formally ordering a
Vigilance Enquiry. The Courts also forward a number of references for enquiries without
strictly ordering Vigilance Enquiry. In such references, action is required to ascertain prima
facie the genuineness of the contents of the petition by generally verifying the basic facts.
Conducting elaborate Vigilance Enquiries on all Court Endorsed References and Government
Endorsed References would only delay the replies to Court/Government. Hence a new
practice of conducting ‘Quick Verification' (QV) started from 01.10.2008 onwards. The time
limit prescribed for completion of Quick Verification is 45 days or such time limits as may be
prescribed by Court or Government.

Surprise Checks

The Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, at its initiative, conducts Surprise Checks on
receipt of petitions and Source reports. The Bureau conducts surprise checks to establish the
truth regarding information received from various sources about suspected case of corruption
and intimate, the results of the surprise checks to the Government. The Bureau has conducted
more than 30 Statewide Surprise Checks during last five years.
Preliminary Enquiry

The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau conducts Preliminary Enquiry (P.E) which
include Vigilance Enquiry/Quick Verification/Surprise Check/Confidential Verification and
Discreet Enquiry to satisfy whether or not commission of cognizable offence is revealed on
information received through various source to the Bureau, before registering an FIR. There
are only two types of FIR contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, one is on
the basis of the information furnished by the informant under Section 154(1) of the Code and
second one is registration of FIR under Section 157(1) of the Code. The requirement of
conducting Preliminary Inquiry has been approved by the Honourable Supreme Court of
India, owing to the change in genesis and novelty of crimes including corruption cases, with
the passage of time. As per the decision in Lalitha Kumari V.Government of Uttar Pradesh
and Others (AIR 2014 SC 187), a full-fledged Enquiry by regular State Police as done in the
CBI is not permissible since regular State Police are not established under any Special Act
like CBI with special procedures to be followed for investigation and hence regular State
Police including Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau adhere to the procedure in the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 in the conduct of investigation. All information relating to cognizable
offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry are recorded in the
General Diary/Station Diary. The purpose of conducting preliminary inquiry on information
lodged with the Station House Officer of a Police Station is to unveil commission of a
Cognizable Offence and the maximum time permissible for such an enquiry is 42 days. If
within this period, commission of cognizable offence is not revealed in the inquiry, it can be
closed and the closure of inquiry will be intimated to the informant. If cognizable offence is
revealed in the Preliminary Enquiry, then FIR will be registered on the said verified
information and it will be duly informed to the concerned Vigilance Court. When in the
Preliminary Enquiry, only misconduct or Conduct Rule violations of Public Servants are
revealed, the Bureau recommend to the Government for remedial actions as envisaged in
G.O(P)65/92/vig. Dated 12.5.1992.
Departments in ACB

Intelligence Cell

An Intelligence Branch headed by Superintendent of Police (Int.) is functioning in the

Directorate to collect, collate and analyse intelligence about corrupt officials/corruption. In
each Range also, there are Intelligence wings under the Superintendents of Police.

Public Relation Cell

A Public Relation Cell is functioning in VACB Directorate to monitor/collect day to day

Media Value news/Important Vigilance incidents like Raid, Arrest, Trap, Court Matters etc.

Centralized Processing System of Petitions Cell

A Centralized Processing System of Petitions (CPSP) is functioning in the VACB Directorate

under the command and control of the SP (Int.) who will be assisted by the IB Inspector.

Monitoring Cell
A Monitoring Cell (M-Cell) is functioning in VACB Directorate to monitor the database of
VC/VE/QV/CV/SC etc. and provide statistical reports of Cases and Enquiries.

Cyber Cell and Cyber Forensic Lab

The Cyber Cell and Cyber Forensic Lab of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau is
established on 31st August 2018 in the Directorate of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram. This Cell
is equipped with state-of-the-art Digital Forensic Equipment with the assistance of Cyber
Forensic Division of CDAC, Ahmedabad

The Cell functions as an expert support and assistance to investigation officers of VACB
units for collecting Digital Evidence and its preservation and analysis. This Cell is the Nodal
Unit for the entire VACB to interact with all Telecom and Internet Service Providers and
technical organisations viz. CDAC, C-DIT, NIC, Gujarat IT Mission, KELTRON, etc. as far
as Cyber and Information Technology related matters concerned. This cell also conducting
extensive training programmes to VACB officials and awareness activities on Cyber Crimes
and its prevention among employees of various organizations, students and the general
public.
POWERS, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

(a) The Anti-Corruption Bureau has powers to investigate offences under

sections 161 to 165-A I.P.C. and the offence of Criminal misconduct under
section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947;

(b) The Anti-Corruption Bureau is competent to conduct investigations

not only against the Government Servants but also other public servants who
are employees of various State Public Undertakings, Statutory Corporations,
Government Companies and Local Authorities; i.e., all paid employees
working in Municipalities, Zilla Parishads, Panchayats and institutions
managed by such local bodies.

(c) While investigating the offences mentioned above, the Anti-

Corruption Bureau may also investigate any other offences committed by the
accused public servant in the course of the same transaction. Further if in
the course of investigation into a case of corruption, any misappropriation of
public funds on the part of A.O. comes to notice, the A.C.B. itself should take
up further action for prosecuting the concerned instead of entrusting the
cases to the Crime Branch C.I.D.

(d) In cases where private persons are involved along with public
servants in criminal conspiracy or abetment or other offences, the
investigation may be made against those persons along with the public
servants concerned.
 (e) According to Government Memoranda No.163/SC.D/83-2&3, General
Administration (SC.D) Department, dated 30 t h March, 1983 and dated 10 t h
June, 1983, the Anti-Corruption Bureau is delegated with the following suo
motu powers for effective functioning.

(i) Anti-Corruption Bureau will have full powers of

collecting source information against all officers;

(ii) Permission for preliminary or regular enquiries,

registration of cases or laying of traps etc., should be given
personally by the Director, Anti-Corruption Bureau and
not by any other functionary;

(iii) In respect of the All- India Service Officers and Heads of

Departments, the Director, Anti-Corruption Bureau should
obtain prior permission of the Chief Secretary before
initiating a discreet or regular enquiry or registering a
case or laying a trap etc,.
 (a) In U.O Note No. 1150/SC.D/83- 2, General Administration
Department, dated 25 t h July, 1983, the Government issued the following
further instructions:-

(i) While forwarding the petitions/complaints to the Anti-

Corruption Bureau, the referring authority need not specify
the type of action to be taken. The petition/complaints should
be forwarded for ‘ Discreet Enquiries’ only;

(ii) If a prima facie case is established during the discreet

enquiry by the Anti-Corruption Bureau either in whole or in
respect of a few of the allegations, the Bureau will convert the
discreet enquiry into ‘Regular Enquiry’ under intimation to the
Department concerned without waiting for the completion of
the enquiry on all the allegations.

(iii) During the Discreet or Regular Enquiry, if a cognizable

offence is found to have been committed, the Anti- Corruption
Bureau itself will register the case under the provision of the
Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act,
as the case may be, and proceed with further investigation
under intimation to the Department concerned;

(iv) In respect of All- India Services Officers and Heads of

Departments, the Director, Anti- Corruption Bureau, would
continue to obtain the prior permission of the Chief Secretary
to Government for initiating any enquiry viz., Discreet
Enquiry/Regular Enquiry/Registering a case/Laying a trap.

In view of the above instructions, the procedure of conducting

preliminary enquiries has been dispensed with.
 The Anti- Corruption Bureau should not investigate into complaints
against non-official Chairmen of Municipalities and Zilla Parishads and
Presidents of Panchayat Samithis and Panchayats without special orders of
Government.

Where the institution of the Lok Ayukta is already seized of the matter,
the A.C.B. will not investigate into cases of the above category.

The Offices of the Director, Additional Director, Joint Directors, Deputy

Superintendents of Police of the city and other Ranges and District and
Range Inspectors of Police of the Anti-Corruption Bureau have been declared
as Police Stations vide G.O. Ms. No. 341, Home (Pol.D) Department, dated
23 r d May, 1984 (Annexure-II).

Clause (D) of Section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

stipulates that not withstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973,no Police Officer bellow the rank of Deputy Superintendent
of Police, shall investigate any offence punishable under Section 161 section
165 or section 165- A of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 5 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act,1947 without the order of a Magistrate of the
First Class or make any arrest therefore without a warrant. However, in
G.O.Ms.
No. 170, General Administration (SC.D) Department, dated 20 t h March, 1968
as per Section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the State Government
authorized the Inspectors, Anti-Corruption Bureau to investigate into cases
falling under Sections 161, 165, 165-A IPC and provisions of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, without orders of a Magistrate of the First Class. An
Officer incharge of an office of the Anti- Corruption Bureau which is declared
as a Police Station may register a case in respect of offences committed
under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947)
within his jurisdiction and investigate it.

The Director exercises all powers of investigation vested in the

subordinate officers of the Bureau. He can call for the record of an enquiry at
any stage and scrutinise them and if necessary, transfer the
enquiry/Investigation from one officer to another at any stage for the reasons
to be recorded. The Additional Director may exercise these powers in the
absence of the Director, Anti-Corruption Bureau.

In all Discreet Enquiries/Regular Enquiries/Registered Cases/Trap

Cases ordered by Government, reports have to be sent to the concerned
Secretaries to Government marking copies to the Chief Secretary to
Government.
The Director will take final decision in respect of the findings arrived at in all
enquiries/investigations of the Bureau and recommend to the Government on
the further action to be taken. The Director may examine witnesses and
undertake tours to satisfy himself on the findings arrived by his subordinates,
in important cases.
Well placed, reliable independent sources are to be cultivated for facilitating
enquiries and investigations. Care has to betaken that the identity of such
sources is not compromised under any circumstance. The standard of
integrity of officers has always to remain unquestionable.

Officers whose activities are questionable or about whose integrity, public

are doubting be repatriated without any delay.

All enquiries will be entrusted to the Deputy Superintendents of Police of the

City Range in respect of the City Zone and to the concerned Deputy
Superintendent of Police of Ranges by the Director, Anti-Corruption Bureau.
In turn, these officers will distribute the enquiries among the Inspectors (both
District and Range) working under them. After thorough
enquiries/investigations, the Investigating Officers will submit their reports
along with Case Diaries and documents through the Range Deputy
Superintendents of Police who will scrutinise the reports minutely. If the
Range Deputy Superintendents of Police themselves are the Investigating
Officers, they should forward their reports along with the Case Diaries and
documents.
 All Inspectors including Range Inspectors are competent to
investigate into cases of traps.

The Range Deputy Superintendents of Police have offices of their own and
they are the Drawing and Disbursing Officers in respect of their Range Staff
and self, according to the instructions contained in G.O.Ms.No.1880, General
Administration (SC.C) Department, dated 16-12-1960.

(a) The Deputy Director, Engineering, attached to the Anti-Corruption

Bureau, is an Officer of the rank of Executive Engineer of Roads and
Buildings Department [G.O.Ms.No.1880, General Administration (SC.C)
Department, dated 16-12-1960]

(b) He assists the Anti- Corruption Bureau Officers with his

technical knowledge in all Engineering matters. As soon as an enquiry
directly concerning the Engineering Department regarding execution of
works etc., is received, the file will be put up by the Special Branch to
the Deputy Director (Engg.). He will scrutinize the
petitions/complaints/
papers connected with the enquiry and prepare a brief on the line of action to
be pursued by the Inspector who is entrusted with the enquiry/investigation.
He will also make a note of this enquiry in his diary for the follow up, if
necessary.

(c) During the course of an enquiry or investigation, the advice of the

Dy. Director, Engineering should, if necessary, be sought by Inspector or
Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Range, as the case may be, to clear
any doubts and to make sure that the enquiry/investigation is proceeding on
correct lines. They may also send such records as they might have seized to
the Deputy Director (Engineering) for scrutiny and proper advice. Wherever
necessary, the Deputy Director, Engineering, will after spot inspection and
scrutiny of the documentary evidence, prepare a special report, which will
form part of the record of enquiry to facilitate processing and assessing of
evidence at various stages.

(d) The Deputy Director (Engineering) also furnishes valuation

reports regarding immovable properties acquired by the Accused/Suspect
Officers. These valuations are done on the basis of the P.W.D. Schedule of
Rates relevant to the period of acquisition of materials or the property.

(e) The final reports sent by the Deputy Superintendents of Police of

the Ranges, in all Engineering cases will be scrutinised by the Deputy
Director (Engineering) before they are seen by the Legal- Adviser/Director of
Prosecutions and Superior Officers.
(a) The Deputy Director (Forests) is a Divisional Forest Officer, deputed to
work in the Anti-Corruption Bureau to assist the Investigating/Enquiry Officer
in all the cases/enquiries pertaining to Forest Department.
(b) In matters relating to the Forest Department, he discharges
functions similar to those of the Deputy Director (Engineering) in Engineering
Cases.

(a) The Deputy Director (Revenue) and the Assistant Director (Commercial
Taxes) who are of the rank of the Special Grade Revenue Divisional Officer
and Commercial Tax Officer respectively, assist the Anti- Corruption Bureau
in all matters concerning Revenue and Commercial Taxes Departments. In
matters relating to the Revenue and Commercial Taxes, they perform
functions similar to those of the Deputy Director (Engineering) in Engineering
Cases.

(b) The Deputy Director (Revenue) and the Assistant Director

(Commercial Taxes) should be specially trained in the investigation
of cases of disproportionate assets, at the Central Bureau of
Investigation, New Delhi, to be of assistance in the processing and
investigation of such cases/enquiries. They will assist the
Investigating Officers with their expert knowledge and guidance not
only from Headquarters but also at field level, whenever necessary.
They will also co-ordinate with Heads of Departments and other
officers in respect of work relating to cases of disproportionate
assets. Draft final reports relating to enquiries and investigation of
cases disproportionate assets will be scrutinised by the Deputy
Director (Revenue) and Assistant Director (Commercial Taxes)
before being put up to the Director through the Additional Director.
LIAISON WITH THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

The Central Bureau of Investigation as in the case of the Anti- Corruption

Bureau is a specialised agency to deal with corruption on the part of Central
Government servants.

According to the Department of Personnel and Administrative reforms

O.M.No 371/5/73-AVD (III), dated 5 t h September, 1975, the Special Police
Establishment enjoys with the respective State Police Force concurrent
powers of investigation and prosecution under the

Criminal Procedure Code. However, to avoid any duplication of effort, an

administrative arrangement has been arrived at with the State Government
according to which-

(a) The cases which substantially and essentially concern the Central
Government employees or the affairs of the Central Government, even
though involving certain State Government employees, are to be investigated
by the Special Police Establishment. The State Police is, however, kept
informed of such cases and it will render the necessary assistance to the
Special Police Establishment during investigation; and

(b) The cases which substantially and essentially involve the State
Government employees or relating to the affairs of a State Government, even
though involving Central Government employees, are investigated by the
State Police. The Special Police Establishment is informed of such cases
and it extends assistance to the State Police during investigation, if
necessary. When the investigation made by the State Police authorities in
such cases involves a Central Government employee, requests for sanction
of prosecution from the competent authority of the Central Government
authority will be routed by the State Police through the Special Police
Establishment.
 (c) Where a trap has to be laid against an employee of the Central
Government and there is no time to contact any representative of Special
Police Establishment, the trap may be laid by the State Police. The Special
Police Establishment should, however, be informed immediately and it should
be decided in consultation with them whether further investigation should be
carried on and completed by the State Police or by the Special Police
Establishment (D.O.No. 21/8/63-GD, dated 5 t h October, 1963 of Central
Bureau of Investigation).

(d) Where there is likelihood of destruction or suppression of evidence if

immediate action is not taken, the State Police may take necessary
steps to secure the evidence. They may register a case, if necessary,
for the purpose. Thereafter, the case should be handed over to the Special
Police Establishment for further investigation. (D.O.No. 21/8/63-GD, dated
5 t h October, 1963 of Central Bureau of Investigation). Similar action can be
taken by the Special Police Establishment.

(e) Information about cases involving Public Servants of the Central

Government, which are being investigated by the State Police should be sent
by them to the Head of the Department and/or the office concerned as early
as possible after the case is started but before a charge-sheet or a final
report is submitted. A copy thereof should be sent to the Special Police
Establishment also (D.O.No. 21/8/63-GD, dated 5th October, 1963 of Central
Bureau of Investigation).
The following categories of complaints or information are considered suitable
for enquiry/investigation through Discreet Enquiries, Regular Enquiries or
Registered Cases, by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against Government/Public
Servants:-

(a) Allegations of dishonest conduct, failure to maintain integrity or

gross dereliction of duty or other acts of corruption;

(b) Allegations involving offences under the Prevention of Corruption

Act and under sections 161 to 165 and 165- A I.P.C., together with any other
offences alleged to have been committed by the public servants;
(c) Complaints/information in which the allegations are such that their
truth cannot be ascertained without making enquiries from non-official
persons or those involving examination of non-Government records, books of
accounts etc., and

(d) Information or complaints relating to large undertakings and

projects sponsored by the State Government or in which the State
Government has financial interest provided the allegations fall under one of
the following categories (a) to (c) mentioned above.
Ordinarily, no enquiries should be made by the Ant-Corruption Bureau in the
following categories of information or complaints except for special reasons:-

(a) Information or complaints containing vague and general

allegations;

(b) Allegations relating to minor service matters which can be dealt

by the Departmental Authorities;

(c) Allegations of a trivial or insignificant nature that can be referred

to departmental authorities for disposal;

(d) Allegations of departmental irregularities or negligence that can

be verified/checked by the department concerned;
 (e) False claims of T.A., L.T.C., Medical reimbursement etc.:

(f) Production of false education certificates, false Caste Certificates

etc., for the purpose of securing employment or some other favours;

(g) Misappropriation, fraud, embezzlement etc., by public servants, which

should normally be investigated by local Police or the Crime Branch C.I.D;

(h) Shortage in Stores, loss, pilferages etc., where the value of the
property found short, lost etc., is small and neither corruption nor
malpractices are involved;
Misuse of staff, cars, Government vehicles, Peons, orderlies etc.,
unless they are habitual and extensive;
(i) Acceptance of below specification work when the loss caused is
small and no malafides are involved;

Note: Where the allegations relate to both corruption and

departmental irregularities, the Anti-Corruption Bureau has to be
consulted by the Department concerned as to which of the allegations
should be enquired/investigated into by the Anti-Corruption Bureau.
The Anti-Corruption Bureau conducts three types of enquiries/investigations.
They are:-
(a) Discreet enquiries;
(b) Regular enquiries;
(c) Registered cases including traps and cases of possession of
disproportionate assets.

The above types of enquiries/ investigations are discussed in detail in the

succeeding Chapters.
Citizens duty
There is sufficiency in the world for man’s need; but not for man’s greed”
-Mahatma Gandhi

 Corruption is a Cancer, root it out

 Corruption is an enemy, within,drive it out
 No legacy is as rich as honesty.

             Corruption is the enemy of the Development and Good Governance. It must be got
rid of. There is a great need to curb this menace in our country. Good Governance and fight
against corruption are now high priorities in the development agenda of any state. The
challenge for us today is to continue developing better ways of tackling corruption, building
on the growing understanding of the problem and use lessons of experience to carryout
reforms.

             Every citizen shall be obliged to fight against corruption, teach their children about
moral values and evil effects of corruption. The duty of the youth is to challenge \corruption.
The citizens have a right to get their lawful work done by the public servants. The citizens
and the Bureau can exchange views and interact in a meaningful way to build up a bull work
to check corruption and pave the way for building a prosperous state. The information from
the citizens on the corrupt public servants is a ladder to the development of the nation.
Purpose of this Charter is to work for better quality in Public Service with the co-operation
and co-ordination of the Public.

             Purpose of this Charter is to work for better quality in Public Service with the co-
operation and co-ordination of the Public.
Goal of Anti-Corruption Bureau

A. To reduce corruption

i. For facilitating faster and hindrance-free economic growth.

ii. For improving ease of doing business and to attract more investments
and to generate more employment.
iii. For ensuring hassle-free availability of govt. services to public and to
ensure good governance.
iv. Public awareness programmes.

B. To educate students, public, business establishments about the ills of

corruption.

C. To study and identify focus areas in different govt. departments that are prone
to corruption.
 Prevention of Corruption Act 2018

Preliminary
Short Title and Extent :

This Act may be called the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.

It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and it applies also to
all citizens of India outside India.

Definitions
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

"election" means any election, by whatever means held under any law for the purpose of
selecting members of Parliament or of any Legislature, local authority or other public
authority;
“prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act and the expression “prescribe”
shall be construed accordingly;
"public duty" means a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community
at large has an interest;
Explanation.-In this clause "State" includes a corporation established by or under a Central,
Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the
Government or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act,
1956.
"public servant" means-

 any person in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by the

Government by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty;
 any person in the service or pay of a local authority ;
 any person in the service or pay of a corporation established by or under a Central,
Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the
Government or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies
Act, 1956;
 any Judge, including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself
or as a member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory functions;
 any person authorized by a court of justice to perform any duty, in connection with
the administration of justice, including a liquidator, receiver or commissioner
appointed by such court;
 any arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been referred for
decision or report by a court of justice or by a competent public authority;
 any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is empowered to prepare,
publish, maintain or revise an electoral roll or to conduct an election or part of an
election;
 any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to
perform any public duty;
 any person who is the president, secretary or other office-bearer of a registered co-
operative society engaged in agriculture, industry, trade or banking, receiving or
having received any financial aid from the Central Government or a State
Government or from any corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or
State Act, or any authority or body owned or controlled or aided by the Government
or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956;
 any person who is a chairman, member or employee of any Service Commission or
Board, by whatever name called, or a member of any selection committee appointed
by such Commission or Board for the conduct of any examination or making any
selection on behalf of such Commission or Board;
 any person who is a Vice-Chancellor or member of any governing body, professor,
reader, lecturer or any other teacher or employee, by whatever designation called, of
any University and any person whose services have been availed of by a University or
any other public authority in connection with holding or conducting examinations;
 any person who is an office-bearer or an employee of an educational, scientific,
social, cultural or other institution, in whatever manner established, receiving or
having received any financial assistance from the Central Government or any State
Government, or local or other public authority.
 Explanation 1.-Persons falling under any of the above sub-clauses are public servants,
whether appointed by the Government or not.
  Explanation 2.-Wherever the words "public servant" occur, they shall be understood
of every person who is in actual possession of the situation of a public servant,
whatever legal defect there may be in his right to hold that situation.

“undue advantage” means any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration;
Explanation: - For the purpose of this clause:-

The word “gratification” is not limited to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications

estimable in money’
The expression “legal remuneration” is not restricted to remuneration paid to a public servant,
but includes all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organization,
which he serves, to receive’;
Disproportionate Assets cases currently ACB
Gujarat is investigating

Retired mamlatadar DA case

The Gujarat Anti-Corruption Bureau has registered a case against a retired class-3 deputy
mamlatdar in Gandhinagar's Kalol area for allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to his
known sources of income.

As against his legitimate income of Rs 24.97 crore, the government employee, who retired a
few years back, made expenditure/investments worth Rs 55.45 crore. This was Rs 30.47 crore
or 122.39 per cent more than his known sources of income, the ACB said in a release.

Between 2006 and 2020, the accused had deposited Rs 5.48 crore cash into bank accounts.
The ACB also found that the retired employee, Viram Desai, had made Rs 7.42 crore cash
payments and withdrawn Rs. 3.08 crore from his bank accounts during this period.

"Rs. 4.61 crore sum was transferred to countries abroad by accused from bank accounts of his
family members which indicates that he has made foreign investments in business. Desai and
six others ae booked under anti corruption law, 2018 amendment, section 12, 13(1) (B) and
13 (2). This is first case in the history of Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) involving such a big
amount of disproportionate assets, as high as Rs. 30.47 crore. ACB has unearthed 3 flats, 2
bungalows, 11 shops, 1 office, 2 plots, BMW, Audi, Jaguar, Honda City - total 11 cars worth
Rs. 3 crore," ACB said.
ASI kutch DA case
The Gujarat Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) booked an assistant sub-inspector (ASI) with
Kutch Police in a disproportionate assets case of Rs 1.22 crore on Tuesday.

According to ACB, Parikshitsinh Jadeja, unarmed ASI (Grade 3) of Gujarat Police posted at
Rapar police station in Kutch Gandhidham, has been booked under The Prevention of
Corruption Act after assets were found in the name of him and his family members
disproportionate to his known sources of income in primary investigation by the anti-graft
agency.
CHANDRAKANT GUNVANTRAI PANDYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT

1. This successive bail application is filed by the Applicant - Accused viz. Chandrakant
Gunvantrai Pandya under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enlarging the
applicant on Regular Bail in connection with I-C.R. No. 15 of 2019 registered with ACB
Police Station, Ahmedabad, District : Ahmedabad (City) for the offences punishable under
Sections 13(1)(B) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 109 of the
IPC.

R/CR.MA/17336/2020 JUDGMENT

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Dipen K. Dave for the Applicant and learned APP Ms.
Maithili Mehta for the Respondent State through Video Conference.

2. The facts in nutshell, as per the main allegations against the applicant in the F.I.R is
that on 05.04.2019, Assistant Director, Field -2, ACB, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad has
filed a complaint stating that the order came to be passed by Assistant Director, ACB,
Gujarat State against the applicant-accused viz. Chandrakant Gunvantrai Pandya, the
then Additional Resident Collector, Surendranagar for making disproportionate assets
and the complainant herein has made preliminary investigation and filed a complaint.
As alleged in the FIR, Mr. Chandrakant Pandya has misused his post and committed
irregularity and illegality and corrupton for being wealthy and invested those wealth
in movable and immovable properties in the name of his daughters viz. Radhik
Pandya, Bhumika Pandya w/o. Jinalbhai Dave and Kamini Dhirajlal Acharya (Niece)
and for making this disproportionate assets, Mr. Dharmeshbhai Manibhai Patel,
Chandrakant Manibhai Patel and Suketuchandra Ranchhodbhai Patel have helped the
accused-Chandrakant Pandya by taking cash from the accused and transferred the
entry from their bank accounts. Thefore, the complaint was filed. In the year 2005 at
Rajkot, the case of disproportionate assets was filed against the applicant, but, the
 complainant has not disclosed the fact that in the said case, after investigation, no
offence was made out and therefore, final report was filed by ACB and it was
accepted by the Ld. Special Court, Rajkot. Therefore, the complainant tried to hide
the said fact from the Honorable Court.

3.1 That the applicant has taken divorce due to some personal reasons and they have two
daughters viz. Radhika and Bhumika R/CR.MA/17336/2020 JUDGMENT and both are
married and living at Ahmedabad doing business by their own and are filing the income-tax
returns also. It is also contended that the applicant has no concern with the properties of
assets of his daughters as they are earning. As per allegations in the complaint, Dharmesh
Patel and his wife Sonalben have given loan to applicant and his daughters as well as niece
Kaminiben Acharya, but not clarified that they have given loan to whom and how much and
they have not given loan to applicant but, have given loan to his daughters and niece. The
applicant has no connection with the said loan as his daughters who are married and niece
who is also married, are doing their own business and earning. Therefore, the applicant
cannot be made responsible for the said loan in any manner.

3.2. That their property was also calculated for the purpose of considering and calculating the
disproportionate assets. That section 13(1) (e) defines the said aspect. Section 13(1)(e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is reproduced as under for the sake of ready reference :

"[(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,--

(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of
his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of
pecuniary resourcesor property disproportionate to his known source of income.
Explanation. For the purpose of this section, "Known source of income" means income
received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the
provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant."'
R/CR.MA/17336/2020 JUDGMENT 3.3. That Rule 2(c) of the Gujarat Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1971, states that so far as definition of "Members of the Family" is
concerned, the wife or husband as the case may be, of the Government Servant whether
residing with the Government Servant or not but does not include a wife or husband as the
case may be, separated from the Government Servant by a decree or order of a competent
Court, or in accordance with the personal law applicable to the Government Servant. Rule 2
(c)(ii) states that son or daughter or step son or step daughter of the Government Servant and
wholly dependent on him or her but does not include a child or step child who is no longer in
any way dependent on the Government servant or of whose custody, the Government Servant
has been deprived of by or under any law. Rule 2 (c)(iii) states that any other person related,
whether by blood or marriage, to the Government Servant's wife or husband, and wholly
dependent on the Government Servant.

3.4. That Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides right to life and personal liberty and
without any due procedure of law and in complete disregard of the provisions of the
Prevention of Corruption, Act and Gujarat Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1971, the present
case was fabricated and thus, which took away the basic and fundamental right of the
applicant. Therefore, applicant seeks liberty and placed reliance on the judgement of the
Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Thakur Bhim singh vs. Thakur Kansingh reported
in (1980) 3 SCC 72.

3.5. That the applicant had already sold Bunglow on 21.03.2014 vide sale deed, therefore the
same cannot be considered as the property of the applicant as well as at Serial No.26, the
Investigating Officer has shown the HDFC mutual fund amount of R/CR.MA/17336/2020
JUDGMENT Rs.25,00,000/- which was also withdrawn by the applicant on 17.06.2011,
therefore the said investment cannot be counted as the existing ownership of the applicant.
The applicant submits that in Column No.8 also, the amount of Rs.66,94,325/- for the
construction on the plot is mentioned as per valuation report. The amount in Column No.8 is
mentioned together for the plot and construction both, and therefore, the amount of
Rs.40,14,060/- cannot be counted in Column No.7 separately again of the plot. The
Investigating Officer without applying his mind has made investigation just to prove the
offence instead of carrying out neutral investigation and has filed a charge-sheet without
following process of law.

3.6. That the Investigating Officer has counted the amount of 30% as also which is
unbelievable and irresponsible. The applicant's total income during the check period is
Rs.82,02,321/- and 30% of the said amount is Rs.24,6,697/-, which is his household expense
and therefore, applicant may be granted regular bail in the interest of justice.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of DSP Chainnal vs. Inbasagaran reported in AIR 2006 SC 552, wherein it
is held that without any appropriate evidence, no any expenses can be counted in the name of
the joint account holder and therefore, the applicant may be granted regular bail in the interest
of justice.

4.1 Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant is senior
citizen who is suffering from memory loss of temporary period and he is diabetic and
generalizes was also diagnosed by the Medical Doctor in the month of August,
R/CR.MA/17336/2020 JUDGMENT 2020. The Medical Test reports of MRI of Brain, blood
test, profiling for diabetic along with other medical test results are also attached which are
also being aided by the Certificate issued by the medical doctor with regard to the condition
of the applicant as the rest is needed. He has submitted that charge-sheet is already filed and
the Investigation is almost over.

4.2 Further learned advocate for the applicant vehemently and fervently argued that as per the
Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971, wherein wife and husband are dependent and
dependents are included, whereas in the present case, applicant has taken divorce from his
wife and as such, no children are depending on him but the divorce has taken place and the
Investigating Officer has calculated the income of married daughter, who is totally
independent. Therefore, false and frivolous case is made out against the applicant, therefore,
applicant may be enlarged on bail. It is further contended that property which is shown is
already sold for which the detailed report is annexed in the petition. Further, no case is made
out for fraudulent transfer of the properties.

4.3 Learned advocate Mr. Dave has also placed on record the short notes which is taken on
record. He has taken this Court to the definition of members of family, which is earlier
mentioned and submitted that so far as the benami transaction is concerned, it is necessary to
reproduce para 18 of the Supreme Court's judgment rendered in the case of Thakur
Bhimsingh (supra):

"18. The principle governing the determination of the question whether a transfer is a benami
transaction or not may be summed up thus: (1) The burden of showing that a transfer is a
benami transaction lies on the person who asserts that it is such a transaction;
R/CR.MA/17336/2020 JUDGMENT (2) if it is proved that the purchase money came from a
person other than the person in whose favour the property is transferred, the purchase is
prima facie assumed to be for the benefit of the person who supplied the purchase money,
unless there is evidence to the contrary; (3) the true character of the transaction is governed
by the intention of the person who has contributed the purchase money and (4) the question
as to what his intention was has to be decided on the basis of the surrounding circumstances,
the relationship of the parties, the motives governing their action in bringing about the
transaction and their subsequent conduct etc."
4.4. It is further contended that the applicant as well as the co- accused have already sold the
assets of Rs. 3.70 crores and the applicant as well as other co-accused have not invested the
amount after maturity period, then also the investigating officer has mentioned the said
investment even after check period.

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
https://www.slideshare.net/
https://indiankanoon.org/
https://indianexpress.com/
https://www.outlookindia.com/