Gujarat High Court
Govindbhai Kumudchandra Rana vs State Of Gujarat on 4 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10781/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF
MUDDAMAL) NO. 10781 of 2025
============================================
GOVINDBHAI KUMUDCHANDRA RANA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
============================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT H SHAH(10712) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MAHETA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 04/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1) By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner has sought following relief(s):
"B) YOUR LORDSHIP MAY BE PLEASED TO quash and set
- aside the judgment and order passed in Criminal Misc.
Case No.2731/2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil - Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, dated 25.04.2025 qua the condition imposed therein;
C) Pending Admission and Final Disposal of the captioned Application YOUR LORDSHIP MAY kindly BE PLEASED TO unfreeze the Five Fixed Deposits;"
2) One criminal complaint is lodged against the accused - Sunil Kumudchandra Rana, brother of the petitioner, bearing C.R.No.1 of 2024 which came to be registered with Ahmedabad ACB Police Station under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).
During the investigation, the Investigating Officer has freezed Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:30:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10781/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined Five Fixed Deposits maintained with Indian Overseas Bank, Kalupur Circle, Railwaypura, Ahmedabad. As the petitioner wants to expand his business, he had filed Criminal Misc. Application No.2731 of 2025, before the learned City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has allowed the said application and ordered to unfreeze the Five Fixed Deposits with a condition to furnish a Bank Guarantee of the equal amount of FDs which shall be effective until the completion of the trial. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashment of said condition of Bank Guarantee imposed vide order dated 25.04.2025.
3) Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the present petitioner is having independent income and he has nothing to do with the present offence and the offence is registered against brother of the petitioner under the provisions of the PC Act. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has freezed Five Fixed Deposits which are lying with Indian Overseas Bank, Kalupur Circle, Railwaypura, Ahmedabad and the petitioner is the joint holder of the said bank account along with his brother and simply saving account and no transaction. The petitioner is regular income tax payer. Though the learned Sessions Judge has been pleased to allow the application but has imposed a condition that the applicant - petitioner herein shall furnish a Bank Guarantee of the equal amount of FDs which shall be effective until the completion of trial. Hence, he has requested to quash and set aside the said condition by allowing the present petition.
4) Learned APP for the respondent - State has vehemently opposed Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:30:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10781/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined the present petition on the ground that the petitioner is brother of the accused - Sunil Kumudchandra Rana but the amount is invested by the accused who is real brother of the petitioner and wife of the accused is joint holder and total disproportionate assets worth Rs.3,19,26,831/- have been found in the name of the accused. The said amount is invested by the accused in the name of different family members. In the said Five FDs the accused is joint holder. Hence, this is not a fit case wherein the petitioner has invested and order is required to release the amount in favour of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the accused has accumulated 355.15% disproportionate assets and under Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, application to attach the said properties has been filed before the learned City Civil Court and the same is pending and the Enforcement Directorate and Income Tax Department are also informed about the said deposits. Hence, as the impugned order is just, legal and proper the learned APP has requested to dismiss the present petition.
5) Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.
6) It is undisputed and admitted fact that the alleged FDs are seized in connection with C.R.No.1 of 2024 registered with Ahmedabad City ACB Police Station and total disproportionate assets worth Rs.3,19,26,831/- have been found in the name of the accused. The charge-sheet has already been filed. It is true that the petitioner has failed to show any known source of his income and savings while doing private job in Nand Medical Store having no taxable income also and merely filing of nil IT Return is not a ground to consider petitioner's own income. In all the Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:30:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10781/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined Five FDs the accused himself is a joint holder. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the order to unfreeze the FDs and imposed a condition to provide the Bank Guarantee but the said order is not assailed by the State Government till date. Now the limited question that remains to be considered in the present petition in narrow compass is whether the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is just, legal and proper to provide the Bank Guarantee of equal amount of the FDs which shall be effective until completion of trial of the case.
7) Section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act reads as under:-
"16. Matters to be taken into consideration for fixing fine.-Where a sentence of fine is imposed under [section 7 or section 8 or section 9 or section 10 or section 11 or sub-section (2) of section 13 or section 14 or section 15], the court is fixing the amount of the fine shall take into consideration the amount or the value of the property, if any, which the accused person has obtained by committing the offence or where the conviction is for an offence referred to in [clause (b)] of sub-section (1) of section 13, the pecuniary resources or property referred to in that clause for which the accused person is unable to account satisfactorily."
8) In view of above, considering the provision of Section 16 of the PC Act, to secure the interest of the case of prosecution, the impugned order is just, legal and proper and if the present petition is allowed then total intention of the legislature would not only get frustrated but same would amount to premium to the wrongdoer or the accused who failed to give satisfactory explanation regarding accumulated disproportionate assets while holding post as public servant and even the proceedings for Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:30:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10781/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined attachment of alleged properties are also initiated which are pending. Hence, no case is made out to pass any direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9) Even, the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are very much limited as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhe Shyam vs. Chhabi Nath reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423, in paragraphs 18 and 23, has been pleased to observe as under:
"18. Thus, it has been clearly laid down by this Court that an Order of court could be challenged under Article 227 and not under Article 226."
"23. Thus, we are of the view that judicial orders of courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226. We are also in agreement with the view of the referring Bench that a writ of mandamus does not lie against a private person not discharging any public duty. Scope of Article 227 is different from Article 226."
10) Herein the present petition is filed under Article 226 only and not under Article 227 of the Constituion of India.
11) Herein before parting, it would not be out of place to mention that the concerned Investigating Officer has adopted double standards. On one hand the respondent authority has not assailed the impugned order dated 25.04.2025, though after accepting the same while application is filed in June 2025 by the petitioner to delete the condition moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and filed the application for attachment of the properties after passing of the impugned order under challenge.
Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:30:12 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10781/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined
12) In view of above, the Director, Anti Corruption Bureau is directed to look into the issue considering the seriousness in the matter.
13) In wake of aforesaid discussion, present petition stands dismissed.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:30:12 IST 2025