Case at a Glance
Bihar’s Vigilance Department prosecuted the respondent under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for assets disproportionate to known sources of income, and a Special Judge took cognizance in 2021. The Patna High Court quashed the cognizance in May 2026, holding that the gold found was within the limits a married woman may hold under a 1994 instruction and a 2016 CBDT press release, so the assets had been miscalculated. The Supreme Court called that reasoning “totally untenable”: an accused in a disproportionate assets case must account for the assets, and merely pointing to press releases and circulars on permissible gold holdings does not do so. It restored the cognizance order and directed the case to proceed.
An FIR was registered on 11 May 2015 at the Vigilance police station, Patna, under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging assets disproportionate to known sources of income; the respondent’s husband was also named. After sanction, a chargesheet was filed on 29 July 2020 against the respondent alone, and on 28 January 2021 the Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna took cognizance in Special Case No. 20 of 2015.
The respondent relied on Instruction No. 1916 dated 11 May 1994 and a CBDT press release dated 1 December 2016, under which a married woman may hold 500 grams of gold, an unmarried woman 250 grams and a man 100 grams. On 14 May 2026 the Patna High Court (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 56839 of 2021) quashed the cognizance order, holding that the gold was within the permissible limit, that the Vigilance Department had seized it in error, and that the disproportionate assets had been miscalculated. The State appealed.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can an accused in a disproportionate assets prosecution account for gold found in her possession simply by showing that it falls within the limits mentioned in government circulars and CBDT press releases?
Entitlement to Hold Versus Duty to Account
The State argued that the entitlement to hold gold is distinct from the obligation to account for it when prosecuted under Section 13(1)(e), and that the circulars do not govern prosecutions under the Act. The respondent contended that, on other aspects too, her assets were not disproportionate to her known sources of income.
The Bench found the High Court’s reasoning “totally untenable”. In such a prosecution it is for the accused to explain the allegation of disproportionate assets, and “merely showing certain press release and circulars” does not amount to accounting for them. The Court did not decide the merits of the respondent’s other contentions; it left her free to pursue the remedies available in law before the trial court, which are to be decided uninfluenced by the High Court’s order or by the Supreme Court’s order.
What the Court Actually Held
- Circulars and CBDT press releases on permissible gold holdings do not, by themselves, account for gold in a prosecution under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- The Patna High Court’s order of 14 May 2026 quashing cognizance was set aside.
- The cognizance order of 28 January 2021 in Special Case No. 20 of 2015 was restored and “The case shall proceed from that stage.”
- The respondent is at liberty to initiate proceedings available in law before the trial court, to be decided on their own merits.
Why This Judgment Matters
- The CBDT gold limits are often relied on by accused persons; this order clarifies their limited role in corruption prosecutions.
- It restates that the burden of explaining disproportionate assets lies on the accused at trial.
- It cautions against quashing a disproportionate assets case at the cognizance stage on a single item of valuation.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Public Servants & Families
- Government guidance on permissible gold holdings is not, by itself, an explanation for gold in a corruption case.
- Keep records of inheritance, gifts and purchases of jewellery, such as bills, wills and family documents.
- Explanations about the source of assets are tested at trial on evidence.
For Counsel
- Distinguish between the right to possess gold and the duty to account for it under Section 13(1)(e).
- Challenges to the computation of disproportionate assets are generally matters for trial, not quashing.
- Use the liberty granted to raise appropriate applications before the trial court.
Key Takeaways
- CBDT gold limits do not account for gold in a DA prosecution.
- Patna High Court’s quashing of cognizance set aside.
- Cognizance order of 28 January 2021 restored; trial to proceed.
- Accused free to pursue remedies before the trial court.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a married woman keep 500 grams of gold without explanation?
In a disproportionate assets prosecution, the Supreme Court held, showing the instruction and CBDT press release on permissible gold holdings does not by itself account for the gold; the accused must still explain it.
Did the Supreme Court find the respondent guilty?
No. It only restored the cognizance order so that the case proceeds; her other contentions remain open before the trial court.
Which provision was involved?
Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as invoked in the 2015 FIR.
Conclusion
The order draws a clear line between being permitted to hold jewellery and being able to show how it was acquired. In disproportionate assets cases, the second question is what matters, and it is answered at trial.
Practical takeaway: In a disproportionate assets case, rely on documents showing the source of gold and other assets; citing CBDT gold limits alone will not secure quashing.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com