- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5829 CRL.RP No. 200092 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200092 OF 2025 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: ABDUL NABI S/O IMAM SAB ELGAL (YALGAR), AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: EX-OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT, JEWARGI, R/O DORANHALLI, TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIR. PRESENTLY WORKING ASST. SECRETARY (ADMIN), ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KODAGU, MADIKERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI-585 103, NOW R/BY SPL.P.P., HIGH COURT, KALABURAGI BENCH-585 103. 2. SRI SUBHASH S/O IRAPPA HOSAMANI, PRESIDENT, KARNATAKA PRANTHA RAITHA SANGH, JEWRAGI-585 310, TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, SPL.PP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED) Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5829 CRL.RP No. 200092 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), SECTION 438 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.07.2025 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI, ON APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 227 OF CR.P.C. IN SPL.CASE (CORRUPTION) NO.1/2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 227 OF CR.P.C. BY THE PETITIONER BY QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.CASE (CORRUPTION) NO.1/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 13(1) (c) (d) R/W 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA) Though the petition is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. The revision petitioner being accused No.6 in Special Case (Corruption) No.01/2021 is impugning the order dated 08.07.2025 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’), rejecting the application - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5829 CRL.RP No. 200092 of 2025 filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and refusing to discharge him for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(c)(d) R/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the P.C. Act’). 3. Heard Sri Sudarshan M., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-Lokayukta. Perused the materials on record. 4. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. suffers from infirmities and calls for interference by this Court?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5829 CRL.RP No. 200092 of 2025 R E A S O N S 5. Respondent No.2 being the President of Karnataka Prantha Raitha Sangh, Jewargi, filed the first information against accused Nos.1 to 5 with the Lokayukta Police, Kalaburagi, alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (c) (d) R/w Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. It is alleged that, accused No.1 is the Joint Director, accused No.2 is the First Division Assistant and accused No.3 is the Auditor of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Bengaluru, accused No.4 is the Panchayat Development Officer (Secretary) of Kellur Gram Panchyat, Taluk Jewargi and accused No.5 is the Officer of Watershed Development Department, Taluk Jewargi. It is alleged that, these accused joined hands with the contractors in implementing the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee (MNREGA) Scheme for the financial year 2010-11 and misappropriated the grant given to the Gram Panchayat. It is stated that, the accused have created job cards in the names of minors, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5829 CRL.RP No. 200092 of 2025 persons who have already died, etc., by using fake I.D. Cards. Accused Nos.1 to 3 being the higher officers have not initiated any action against accused Nos.4 and 5 and they have joined hands with them to hush up the offence committed and the criminal misappropriation of the fund. It is also stated that, a sum of Rs.10,000/- each was deposited to the accounts of 22 persons and job cards were being issued to the members of the same family. Instead of giving maximum 100 days work to the labourers under the Scheme, in 9 different instances, for about 108 families, 168 days work was allotted. It is suspected that, lakhs of rupees were misappropriated by the accused. On the basis of the first information, the FIR came to be registered. Now, the charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 7. 6. It is stated that, the Trial Court allowed similar application filed on behalf of accused Nos.1 to 3 and discharged them. Accused No.4, one of the PDO is already dead. Now, the petitioner being accused No.6, who is also - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5829 CRL.RP No. 200092 of 2025 a PDO is before this Court, impugning the order passed by the Trial Court, dismissing his application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and refusing to discharge him. 7. Column No.17 of the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer refers to the role of accused Nos.1 to 3 stating that, they were negligent in initiating action against accused Nos.4 to 7 and thereby, they have misused their authority. It is stated that, accused No.4 was the PDO and separate charge sheet came to be filed against her. However, accused No.4 is reported to be dead. 8. It is alleged against the petitioner/accused No.6 that, even though multiple job cards were issued to the members of the same family, the petitioner being the PDO had not verified the records, nor initiated any action in respect of such irregularities. The Investigating Officer refers to the names of various families and their family members with job card numbers and also stated that, each family was paid more than Rs.10,000/- by violating the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5829 CRL.RP No. 200092 of 2025 conditions under the Scheme. It is stated that, the petitioner has misappropriated an amount of Rs.2,48,757/- by issuing the cheque for Rs.15,75,300/-, whereas the labourers were entitled only for Rs.13,94,125/- and thus, he has committed misconduct punishable under Section 13 (1) (c) (d) R/w Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. 9. It is contended that accused Nos.1 to 3 are discharged by the Trial Court. The order passed by the Trial Court in that regard is produced before this Court. The Trial Court has considered the allegations against each of accused Nos.1 to 3 and formed an opinion that, there are no materials against them to proceed with the criminal case and therefore, discharged them for the above said offence. However, while passing the impugned order, similar relief was rejected to the present petitioner on the ground that, there are prima facie materials to constitute the offence against him. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5829 CRL.RP No. 200092 of 2025 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the report of the Ombudsman, Zilla Panchayat, Kalaburagi, to contend that the petitioner is given a clean chit in the report, but I do not find any such finding recorded by the Ombudsman. 11. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to the report of the Disciplinary Authority/CEO, Zilla Panchayat, Kalaburagi to contend that, in the departmental enquiry, the petitioner is given a clean chit. 12. When the enquiry report by the Disciplinary Authority is considered in the light of the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, I find very detailed allegations made against the petitioner under various heads which are supported by sufficient materials. I do not find any satisfactory finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority to give a clean chit to the petitioner. From the materials that are placed before the Court, I am of the opinion that, there are prima facie materials against the petitioner to go for trial. Under such circumstances, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5829 CRL.RP No. 200092 of 2025 petitioner is not entitled for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Malik vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.1 and Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence2, to contend that, the confessional statement of the co-accused will not bind the other accused. 14. This position of law is very well settled. The allegations made in the final report by the Investigating Officer are not on the basis of the voluntary statements of the co-accused, but they were on the basis of the materials on record. Voluminous records were collected by the Investigating Officer to justify the allegations made against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, I do not 1 2025 INSC 118 2 (2018) 8 SCC 271 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5829 CRL.RP No. 200092 of 2025 find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 15. In view of the discussions held above, I answer the above point in the ‘negative’ and proceed to pass the following: ORDER Criminal revision petition is dismissed. The observations made herein above are only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and the same shall not influence the Trial Court in considering the matter on merits. In view of disposal of the revision petition, I.A.No.1/2025 stands dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE LG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45