The Gujarat High Court has rejected retired deputy collector Kamlesh Goradia’s plea to quash proceedings in a disproportionate-assets case, directing the Ahmedabad Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) court to proceed according to law.
The case stems from a complaint registered by the Ahmedabad ACB in 2015. The agency investigated Goradia’s assets and income during the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2008, when he was serving in the state administration. According to the case presented before the court, the alleged disproportionate assets were initially assessed at around Rs 1.04 crore and later rose to approximately Rs 2.32 crore after the chargesheet was filed. The latter figure was described as about 455 per cent of his known income.
Goradia had joined government service directly as a mamlatdar in 1986 and was later promoted to deputy collector. He retired in 2015. In his petition, he argued that the investigation had not properly considered his savings from the 14 years between 1986 and 1999, while focusing only on the nine-year period selected by the investigating agency.
He also argued that assets and investments belonging to his estranged wife and independently earning adult sisters had been attributed to him. His submissions referred to money received from relatives, including around Rs 53 lakh supported by affidavits from family members in Amreli. He further claimed that mutual fund redemptions had been reinvested but were counted as new investments, resulting in repeated calculations. The petition also alleged that household expenses had been deducted twice—once as a 30 per cent deduction from salary and again in the relevant statement.
Goradia told the court that marital disputes with his separately living wife had led to the complaint. He also referred to an earlier complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, in which police had submitted a B-summary report, according to the report placed before the High Court. He additionally pointed to an alleged delay of about six years between the 2015 FIR and the filing of the chargesheet.
The government lawyer argued that the allegations disclosed a prima facie case and that the authenticity of investments, bank deposits, loans and gifts could be examined only by the trial court. The prosecution also submitted that the High Court should not conduct a mini-trial or undertake an accounting audit while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The High Court observed that where independent evidence indicates an offence under anti-corruption law, alleged personal hostility behind a complaint becomes secondary. It held that an investigating agency can determine a check period based on circumstances requiring examination. If the accused relies on savings accumulated before 2000, the court said, the responsibility to establish that explanation would arise during the trial under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The court also treated disputes involving mutual-fund rotations, redeemed amounts, alleged double counting and accounting discrepancies as matters requiring examination of complex financial evidence. Affidavits relating to gifts from private individuals, it said, do not automatically become conclusive proof; the witnesses would have to testify and face cross-examination before their reliability could be assessed.
Since the chargesheet contained a preliminary basis for continuing the case, the High Court said Goradia should approach the trial court for discharge or face trial rather than seek quashing of the proceedings. The petition was dismissed, and the Ahmedabad ACB court was directed to continue the case in accordance with law.
