Gujarat High Court refuses to quash ACB assets case against retired deputy collector
The Gujarat High Court on 21 October 2026 refused to quash an ACB disproportionate-assets case against Kamlesh Harilal Goradia, a retired deputy collector, and said the trial must proceed.
Key points
- The Gujarat High Court dismissed a retired deputy collector's petition to quash an ACB disproportionate-assets case and its chargesheet.
- According to the ACB chargesheet, assets disproportionate to known income stood at Rs 2.32 crore for the period 2000 to 2008.
- The court left all defences open for the trial and directed the Special Judge (ACB), Ahmedabad, to proceed; the allegations are yet to be tested at trial.
Kamlesh Harilal Goradia, a retired Deputy Collector (Class-I) of the Gujarat government, has lost his bid to have a disproportionate-assets case against him quashed. In a judgment delivered on 21 October 2026, the Gujarat High Court dismissed his petition and directed the Special Judge (ACB), Ahmedabad, to proceed with the trial.
What Happened
The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) registered the case on 6 January 2015 under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which deals with a public servant holding assets beyond known lawful income. According to the FIR, he held assets disproportionate to his known income of about Rs 1.04 crore, or 213.08%, during the check period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2008. The ACB's chargesheet, after investigation, recalculated the figure at about Rs 2.32 crore, or 455.88%, per the judgment.
He had asked the court to quash the FIR, the chargesheet and the case, arguing among other things that investments were counted twice, that gifts and family income were ignored, that the figure doubled between the FIR and the chargesheet, and that the investigation took nearly six years. The court held that these were disputed questions of fact to be tested with evidence at trial, and that it could not hold a "mini-trial" while deciding a petition to quash. It said a rise in the figure after investigation is not by itself a ground to quash, and that delay can be a ground to seek a faster trial, not to end the case. It found that the chargesheet discloses a prima facie case, meaning a case that appears to exist on first view.
What It Means
The case, Special ACB Case No. 17/2021, will now go to trial, where all his defences remain open and the trial court is to decide them without being influenced by the High Court's observations. These are allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court, and due process continues.
Citizens who face a bribe demand from an official can report it to their state's anti-corruption bureau. Oquilia's guide lists every state's helpline: https://www.oquilia.com/report-a-bribe
Source: High Court judgment
Sources & Citations
- High Court judgment — Gujarat High Court