The Gujarat High Court has refused to quash a disproportionate-assets case against retired deputy collector Kamlesh Gordiya and directed the Ahmedabad Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) court to proceed with the matter according to law.
The case originated from a complaint registered at the Ahmedabad ACB police station in 2015. The prosecution alleges that Gordiya accumulated assets disproportionate to his lawful income during a nine-year period from January 2000 to December 2008.
According to the case details cited in the court proceedings, the alleged disproportionate assets were initially estimated at ₹1.04 crore. After the chargesheet and further investigation, the amount was stated to have increased to around ₹2.32 crore, described as approximately 455% of the accused officer’s income.
Gordiya had joined government service directly as a mamlatdar in 1986 and was later promoted to deputy collector. He retired in 2015. His petition argued that the investigation had failed to account for his 14 years of service between 1986 and 1999 and the savings accumulated during that period before selecting the 2000-2008 check period.
He also argued that the complaint was linked to marital disputes and differences with his separately residing wife. The petition referred to an earlier complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code in which police had submitted a B-summary report, treating the complaint as false, according to the report.
The High Court held that where independent evidence discloses offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleged personal hostility behind a complaint becomes a secondary consideration. It also observed that an investigating agency can determine a check period based on the circumstances of a case.
The court said that if the petitioner claimed to have savings from before 2000, the responsibility to establish that claim would remain with him during the trial. It further noted that affidavits submitted by private individuals about gifts received during the investigation could not automatically be treated as conclusive evidence. The witnesses would have to appear before the court, give evidence and face cross-examination before the truth of those claims could be assessed.
The ruling also cited Supreme Court decisions to state that the High Court cannot function as an auditor of the case at the stage of a petition to quash proceedings. Once a chargesheet has been filed and a prima facie basis exists, the accused should approach the trial court with a discharge application or face the trial, the court said.
The High Court accordingly declined to interfere with the proceedings and directed the Ahmedabad ACB court to continue the case in accordance with law. The ruling does not determine Gordiya’s guilt or establish the allegations as proved; those issues will be examined during the trial.
