- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3603 CRL.RP No. 200107 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200107 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE VIJAYAPURA, REP. BY SPL. PROSECUTOR LOKAYUKTA, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI-585107. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DILIPKUMAR MASAJI POL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KBJNL, MATTIHALA, DIST. VIJAYAPUR, 2. SIDDESHI S. DYAMAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KBJNL, MATTIHALA, DIST. VIJAYAPUR, 3. NARENDRA KUMAR YOGISH C., AGE: MAJOR, OCC: ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KBJNL, MATTIHALA, TQ & DIST. VIJAYAPUR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R. S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3603 CRL.RP No. 200107 of 2021 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/Sec. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE TOP NOTED REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.04.2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE AT VIJAYAPUR IN SPECIAL (LOK) CASE NO.05/2016, WHEREBY DISCHARGING THE ACCUSED / RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES U/SEC. 13(i)(c) R/W 13(ii) OF P.C. ACT, AND SEC. 468, 471 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for the revision petitioner – Lokayukta and Sri R.S.Lagali, learned counsel for the respondents – accused. 2. Lokayukta is in revision challenging the order of discharge passed by the learned Special Judge in Special (Lok) Case No.5/2016 dated 23.04.2021. 3. Facts in brief, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3603 CRL.RP No. 200107 of 2021 A charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C.Act’) and under Sections 468, 417 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), contending that the accused persons were entrusted the work of supervision of the work to be conducted by the contractor by name GVPR Contract Company. The work was not properly carried out by GVPR Contract Company and respondents who were required to supervise the work properly gave false report to the Government and there was misappropriation of the amount to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- resulting in filing case against respondents. 4. After appearing before the Court, respondents filed an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge of the accused persons on the ground that the complaint itself is motivated at the behest of a sitting MLA and therefore, sought for discharge from the case. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3603 CRL.RP No. 200107 of 2021 5. It is also contended that the progress report was submitted to the Government time to time and supervision report was accepted by the concerned Department and thereafter, bill of the contractor was being paid. 6. It is also contended that execution of the work of Jackwell No.2 was also satisfactorily completed one year earlier to the alleged complaint and Managing Director of Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited (‘KBJNL’ for short) after satisfactory report issued completion certificate and the bills were processed. Therefore, absolutely there is no material on record to register and proceed with criminal case. 7. Learned Trial Judge entertaining the objections of Lokayuktha considered the material placed on record in the form of charge sheet and after satisfying himself that there was no material prima facie which would attract the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3603 CRL.RP No. 200107 of 2021 13(1)(c) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act or under Sections 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code allowed the application and discharged the accused persons from the case. 8. 8. Validity of the said Order is called in question in the present Revision Petition. 9. Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Trial Judge did not take into consideration the evidentiary or probative value of the material collected by the Investigation Officer at the time of considering the discharge application and has conducted a mini trial which is impermissible while disposing of the discharge application resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the petition. 10. Per contra, Sri R.S.Lagali, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned Order. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3603 CRL.RP No. 200107 of 2021 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that as on the date of the complaint major portion of the work was completed which was acknowledged by the Managing Director of KBJNL by issuing completion certificate. 13. It is only thereafter the bills have been processed. Prima facie this would show that the supervision work conducted by the respondents are proper and there was no irregularity or illegality in discharging their work. 14. To attract the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, prosecution has to establish that there is financial loss that has been caused to the Government while carrying out the official work. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3603 CRL.RP No. 200107 of 2021 15. No such material is forthcoming on record in the charge sheet material in view of the completion certificate being issued acknowledging completion of the work by no lesser person than the Managing Director of KBJNL who is the actual person who has entrusted the work to GVPR Contract Company. 16. In the absence of any prima facie material continuation of criminal case was totally uncalled for and therefore, learned Trial Judge has rightly discharged the accused from the case. 17. Pertinently, an order of discharge would not amount to acquittal. 18. If the investigation agency is able to collect/ gather any other material, it is open for the investigation officer to file additional/supplementary charge sheet against the accused persons. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3603 CRL.RP No. 200107 of 2021 19. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that revision petition is meritless. 20. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SRT-paragraph 1 to 3. Kcm-paragraph 4 till end. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64 CT:PK