Corruption Can Erode Trust In Institutions, Stifle Growth & Exacerbate Social Inequality, Must Be Dealt With Strictly: Gujarat High Court
While rejecting an anticipatory bail application filed by a Ward Inspector of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) in connection with a corruption case, the Gujarat High Court underscored that corruption not only undermines the nation's economic progress but also has far-reaching consequences on social and political spheres. The Court further opined that corruption can corrode trust...
While rejecting an anticipatory bail application filed by a Ward Inspector of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) in connection with a corruption case, the Gujarat High Court underscored that corruption not only undermines the nation's economic progress but also has far-reaching consequences on social and political spheres.
The Court further opined that corruption can corrode trust in institutions, impede economic development, and exacerbate social disparities, and thus should be handled with a strict hand.
Justice JC Doshi presiding over the store stated, “Corruption can seep into many aspects of society, creating a ripple effect of negative consequences. It can erode trust in institutions, stifle economic growth and exacerbate social inequality. Corruption has widespread effect. It is not only effecting country's economic growth, but social and political as well. Corruption should be handled with strict hand.”
The above observation came in a petition filed an anticipatory bail application filed by a Ward Inspector of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) whereby the petitioner prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered.
The case of the prosecution was that the present applicant -- Sunil Rana -- was serving as Ward Inspector in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and upon information received and inquiry was initiated concerning wealth amassed by the present applicant and such inquiry was confined to the check period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2020.
It was alleged that during the 10 years of the said check period, the applicant was found in possession of wealth beyond his known source of income to the extent of 306%.
It was further alleged that an amount of Rs.2,75,18,223/- was found in excess of the total income, expenditure etc. of the applicant which has been quantified accordingly. In such a background, an FIR for aforesaid offence is filed.
An investigation was launched against Rana regarding the accumulation of wealth from April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2020 (the checking period).
According to the prosecution, prior to the checking period i.e. 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2020, he had barely movable and immovable property worth Rs.2,91,313/-. However, at the fag end of the checking period, the petitioner has got movable and immovable property to the tune of Rs.3,25,76,612/-.
The prosecution contended that the income of the petitioner from the known source during the checking period is Rs.89,89,694/- and the total expenses during the checking period is around Rs.42,22,618/-. Based on the findings of the investigating officer, it was concluded that Rana had amassed a total of unaccounted movable and immovable assets worth Rs. 2,75,18,223/-, which represented a 306% increase over Rana's known source income.
The Court observed that in the FIR, the investigating officer had calculated that the petitioner had amassed disproportionate assets amounting to Rs.2,75,18,223/-, which was 306% higher than the petitioner's known source income.
The Court noted that the petitioner's advocate disputed this figure, contending that the sum of Rs.1,03,68,000/- received from his father-in-law via cheque should not be considered as disproportionate assets since it was sourced from a known origin.
The Court opined, “Even if this submission is considered to be true, there is reason to believe that huge amount runs in seven figures is accumulated by the petitioner as ill-gotten wealth.”
“At the same time, it is also to be considered that as per learned advocate for the petitioner, father-in-law of the petitioner has given more than one crore to family members of the petitioner, but whether it is loan or is gift or paid for some reason, is not cleared. No submission qua is made by learned advocate for the petitioner. This transaction without any explanation itself is also suspicious and mistrustful,” the Court added.
The Court observed that according to the investigating officer's report, following the lodging of the FIR, assets comprising both movable and immovable property valued at Rs.49,66,250/- belonging to the petitioner were discovered to be of dubious origin.
The Court highlighted that the petitioner's advocate failed to provide any justification for this significant accumulation of questionable wealth.
The Court underscored, “Prima facie, it appears that this is an economic offence under the Corruption Act and is causing serious threat to the economic structure of the country.”
Considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, whereby huge amount of crores of rupees is disproportionated by the government officer, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.” the Court said while dismissing Rana's anticipatory bail plea.
Appearance:Mr Virat G Popat(3710) For The Applicant(S) No. 1Mr Soham Joshi, Addl. Public Prosecutor For The Respondent
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 24
Case No.: R/Criminal Misc.Application (For Anticipatory Bail) No. 4246 Of 202
Case Title: Sunil Kumudchandra Rana Versus State Of Gujarat