- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4707 CRL.RP No. 100001 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100001 OF 2019 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: THE STATE THROUGH CBI, BENGALURU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE) AND: GONUGUNTA BRAHMAIAH S/O. G. SESAIAH, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER IN BSNL, R/O. HUBBALLI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHANKAR P. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIN IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER ON APPLICATION U/S. 227 OF CR.P.C. DATED 27.07.2018 PASSED IN SPL.CBI.C.C.NO.22/2013 ON THE FILE OF III-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.21 10:33:49 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4707 CRL.RP No. 100001 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Needendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Shankar P. Hegde, learned counsel for respondent. 2. Order passed on application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. in Spl. CBI C.C. No.22/2013 dated 27.07.2018, is assailed in this revision petition. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1 Revision petitioner-CBI registered a case on 27.08.2008 for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘P.C. Act’) against the accused. Since it was a failed trap, ‘B’ report came to be filed in respect of said FIR and the same is accepted by the Court on 16.12.2008. One more case came to be filed by CBI after searching the premises of the accused and movable and immovable properties were - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4707 CRL.RP No. 100001 of 2019 seized and bank account was frozen. In the interregnum, a case came to be filed, which was numbered as C.C.No.27345/2011. Accused came to be discharged in the said case as well by order dated 14.07.2014 by the Special Magistrate for CBI. 3.2. For the reasons best known to CBI, it did not challenge the order of discharge nor filed any supplementary charge sheet in respect of Spl.C.C.No.27345/2011. 3.3. Later on the present case came to be filed alleging the offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. 3.4. Accused being the employee of Indian Telegram Service was deputed to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short, ‘BSNL’). Earlier to his deputation, he was working as a Scientist in Department of Space from 25.06.1991 to 20.02.1996. According to the prosecution, check period commenced from 11.08.2003 and ended in 27.08.2008. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4707 CRL.RP No. 100001 of 2019 Investigation Agency has taken into consideration salary drawn by the accused and other known sources of income and the expenditure made by the accused including the marriage expenses of daughter of the accused, found that there is an excess amount of cash, gold and silver articles including the value of the immovable property, which is not accounted and from other sources to the tune of 78.03% in excess to be non-source of income. 3.5. After the charge sheet came to be filed, cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Special Magistrate and summoned the accused. Accused appeared before the Court and filed an application seeking discharge basically on the ground of improper sanction as well as the calculation made by the Investigation Officer in arriving at excess income of 78.3% is per se incorrect. 3.6. In the said application itself, accused pointed out several discrepancies insofar as the calculation of excess assets and contended that deliberately Investigation Agency did not consider the allowable expenditure and the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4707 CRL.RP No. 100001 of 2019 sources which were explained by the accused at the time of investigation, only with an intention to harass the petitioner taking note of the previous proceedings ending in favor of the accused. 3.7. Application filed by the accused was opposed seriously by the CBI by filing written objections in detail. Learned Special Magistrate heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed on record and thereafter allowed the application seeking discharge and closed the case by discharging the accused. 3.5 Being aggrieved by order of discharging the accused, CBI is before this Court, in this revision petition. 4. Sri Neelendra Gunde, learned counsel for the CBI, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that the learned Special Magistrate while considering the application seeking discharge, in fact ventured to hold a mini trial, which is impermissible and against the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court as - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4707 CRL.RP No. 100001 of 2019 to how an application seeking discharge is to be considered by the Trial Judge. 5. Therefore, according to the CBI, the impugned order has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. Sri.Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/CBI would further contend that per se in a matter of this nature, especially when a charge is under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, order discharging the accused is impermissible inasmuch as the offence gets concluded only after prosecution establishes that there is excess assets and accused failed to offer proper explanation for the proved excess assets. Therefore, impugned order is incorrect and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. Per contra, Sri.Shankar P. Hegde, learned counsel for the accused/respondent supports the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4707 CRL.RP No. 100001 of 2019 impugned order by contending that each and every item which is shown in excess to the known source of income in the charge sheet has been explained by the accused by furnishing a detailed statement running into several pages and same has been considered by the learned Special Judge prima facie to note that there is a deliberate suppression of material facts and twisting of the material facts collected at the time of investigation only with an intention to harass the accused. Same is taken note of by the learned Special Magistrate while passing the impugned order. 8. He would further emphasize that gift deed made in favour of wife of the accused has been explained by the accused same is not considered by the investigation agency by filing the charge sheet. 9. He would further point out that an agreement in question was the subject matter of CC No.27345/2011 and learned Special Judge did consider the application filed by the accused seeking discharge with regard to the alegation - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4707 CRL.RP No. 100001 of 2019 of concoction of the said document and discharged the said accused in the said case which is not challenged by the CBI though the order is passed way back in 14.07.2014 which exposes the hollowness in the claim of the CBI. Thus, he sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 10. He would also contend that despite such discharge, CBI proceeded to stick on to the stand that the documents that have been seized during the search, are collected only with an intention to make good the illegal acquisition of the assets by the accused with malafide intention which has been rightly noticed by the learned Special Judge and impugned order came to be passed and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 11. In the light of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4707 CRL.RP No. 100001 of 2019 12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that in respect of Crime No.10/2008, which was filed under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, there was an attempted trap by the CBI. However, it was a failed trap. Left with no alternative, CBI filed ‘B’ report in respect of Crime No.10/2008. 13. Later on, they conducted search and seizure by registering one more case. In such process, they caught hold of an agreement which according to CBI was a concoction made by the accused. Therefore, charge sheet came to be filed in respect of subsequent case which was registered in CC No.27345/2011. 14. Learned Special Magistrate for CBI took cognizance of the charges leveled against the accused pursuant to the charge sheet filed by the CBI and issued summons to the accused. Accused appeared in the said case and filed discharge application. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4707 CRL.RP No. 100001 of 2019 15. Learned Special Magistrate taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, noted that the allegations made by the CBI that there is concoction of the agreement on behalf of the accused is incorrect and there is no material placed on record which would be sufficient enough to proceed with the criminal case and discharged the accused by order dated 14.07.2014. 16. Thereafter, when the said case was pending, CBI obtained the sanction order for the present case and filed the charge sheet alleging the commission of the offence for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 17. Cheque period that is shown in the charge sheet is dated 11.08.2003 to 27.08.2008. Several entries were noted in the charge sheet which according to the prosecution, there is no proper explanation offered by the prosecution resulting in possessing/acquiring the assets by - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4707 CRL.RP No. 100001 of 2019 the accused which is 78.3% more than the known sources of income to the prosecution. 18. However, soon after the accused appeared before the learned Special Magistrate in the case on hand, a detailed account is made available along with the discharge application explaining each and every entry for which the prosecution has stated that there is no proper proof. 19. Learned Special Judge took into consideration all those aspects of the matter especially the income that has been declared in the tax returns as on 31.03.2009 to the extent of Rs.32,18,686/-. 20. Pertinent to note that cheque period being dated 11.08.2003 to 27.08.2008, income tax returns filed on 31.03.2009 should have been taken into consideration by the CBI before arriving at a finding that accused has acquired assets more than 78.3% then the known source of income. Absolutely, no explanation is forthcoming in - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4707 CRL.RP No. 100001 of 2019 the charge sheet materials as to the amount that has been declared by the accused in the tax returns filed for the Financial Year 31.03.2009 to the extent of Rs.32,18,686/-. 21. There are several such discrepancies that has been pointed out in writing, by the accused in the discharge application which has been taken of note by the learned Special Judge to find out that the trial if any that would be proceeded against the accused would result in futile exercise, Therefore, rightly discharged the accused from the charges that has been leveled against him in the charge sheet. 22. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that an order of discharge passed by a duly constituted Court is not final and it would not amount to acquittal. 23. It is always open for prosecuting agency to collect further material if any and file - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4707 CRL.RP No. 100001 of 2019 supplementary/additional charge sheet as is contemplated Under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. 24. Reserving such liberty for the prosecution, this Court is of the considered opinion that impugned order does not require interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction especially when there is material evidence placed on record by the accused explaining the excess income in writing. 25. In view of the foregoing discussions, following: ORDER Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE Para Nos.1 to 4 – NAA Para Nos.5 to 22 - KAV CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 43