PHULPARI KUMARIversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56839 of 2021
       Arising out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2015 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
======================================================
Phulpari Kumari, W/o Yogendra Kumar Madhup, R/o Gayatrinagar Bisunpur
Pakari, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District- Patna.

                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                  Versus
The State of Bihar Through Vigilance Bihar

                                       ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Hemant Kumar, Adv.
                                  Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Adv.
                                  Mr. Kanishk Kaustubh, Adv.
                                  Ms. Lakshmi Kumari, Adv.
                                  Mr. Rajnish Prakash, Adv.
                                  Mr. Ankesh Kumar Sinha, Adv.
                                  Ms. Prerna, Adv.
                                  Dr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Arvind Kumar, SP/PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
                      ORAL JUDGMENT
 Date : 14-05-2026

             Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

             2. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order of cognizance

dated 28.01.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance,

Patna in connection with Special Case No. 20 of 2015 arising out

of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 37 of 2015 registered for the offences

under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988.

             3. The petitioner was posted as CDPO Patna. While

taking bribe, she was trapped by the Vigilance and the case was
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56839 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
                                2/4




registered vide Vigilance P.S. Case No. 54 of 2013. During the

search of the house, inventory of other articles was prepared along

with several documents showing investment in Bank. Vigilance PS

Case No. 37 of 2015 was instituted under Section 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act. During the course of enquiry, the

D.A. against her husband was found minimal. Therefore, no

charge-sheet was submitted against her. The difference between

the total income and expenditure of the petitioner during the check

period was Rs. 12,71,693/-. The total weight of gold jewellery was

646.400 grams. The case of the petitioner is that the same not only

belongs to her but also to her unmarried daughter and other family

members.

           4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon

Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 and Press Release issued by

Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of

Direct Taxes dated 01.12.2016 which prescribes that a married

woman is entitled to possess 500 Grams of gold jewellery,

unmarried lady is entitled to possess 250 Grams of gold jewellery

and male is entitled to possess 100 Grams of gold jewellery. There

is no doubt that the petitioner is a married woman and married

woman is entitled to 500 Grams of gold and the petitioner has a
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56839 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
                                 3/4




daughter who was unmarried on the date of search, i.e.,

17.08.2013.

           5. Learned counsel for the Vigilance submits that

Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 and Press Release issued by

Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of

Direct Taxes dated 01.12.2016 will not be applicable in the case of

the petitioner. He has filed counter-affidavit where the details of

mode and manner of assessment of gold jewellery has been given

but it is categorical case of the Vigilance Department that the

Instruction has been issued to the Income Tax Department with

reference to possession of gold jewellery. In sum and substance, it

is submitted by learned counsel for the Vigilance that the aforesaid

Executive Instruction/Guidelines issued by the Government has no

application in the present case of the petitioner.

           6. In the present case, if the gold is calculated with

reference to the aforesaid Circular, the petitioner does not possess

more than 750 Grams which is the permissible limit of petitioner.

Thus, the Vigilance Department has seized the gold erroneously

and has committed error in calculating the weight of the gold

jewellery of the petitioner and determining the proportionate assets

of the petitioner.
                                 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56839 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
                                                    4/4




                              7. In such view of the matter, the order of cognizance

                    dated 28.01.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance,

                    Patna in connection with Special Case No. 20 of 2015 arising out

                    of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 37 of 2015 registered for the offences

                    under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption

                    Act, 1988 is quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned.

                              8. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.



                                                    (Ansul, J)
Vikash/-
AFR/NAFR              NAFR
CAV DATE              N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date