- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47732 CRL.RP No. 1531 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1531 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI SATHISH KUMAR S/O LATE SRI THIRUMALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO.97, VIJAYANAGARA 2ND PHASE, GUDDENAHALLI, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. MANAGER, CHIKKAMAGALUR CMC, …PETITIONER [BY SRI G.M.ANANDA, ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: ACB POLICE, NOW THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, D C OFFICE BUILDING, B M ROAD, HASSAN CIRCLE, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201, REP BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. …RESPONDENT [BY SRI VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE (PH)] THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE RP BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.07.2025 PASSED BY THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN SPL.C.NO.168/2022 REJECTING APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR DISCHARGE AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47732 CRL.RP No. 1531 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 19.07.2025 passed by Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, in SPL.C.no.168/2022, rejecting application for discharge, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri GM Ananda, learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted, above prosecution was initiated for offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(a) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 ('POCA', for short) in pursuance of FIR no.04/2017 registered on 31.07.2017 by Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hassan, ('ACB' for short), allegedly based on credible information that during check period from 19.04.2000 to 01.04.2017 known source of income of petitioner was Rs.35,42,264/-, whereas he had assets worth Rs.52,07,462/- apart from expenditure of Rs.22,85,130/-, which would indicate that accused had amassed assets at 111.51% beyond his known sources of income and thereby committed offences. 3. It was submitted, proceedings were initiated at instance of persons inimically to interests of accused with view - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47732 CRL.RP No. 1531 of 2025 to humiliate him by abusing process of law. Further, though accused had offered explanation before ACB about each asset, without considering or investigating same, Charge-sheet was filed on 09.03.2022 in Spl.C.no.168/2022. 4. Therefore, on 14.12.2023, accused had filed application for discharge stating that he had filed declaration of Assets and Liability every year and stated that in year 2003-04, his father-in-law gifted site no.97 of Vijayanagar, 2nd Phase, Guddenahalli, Hassan, measuring 35 ft. x 40 sq.ft., worth about Rs.1,12,446/-. However, its market value was considered at Rs.12 Lakhs. Further, items no.1 to 4 were acquired by petitioner in family partition, which were valued after ten years. Item no.104 was purchased by raising loan from bank by his wife and though, accused did not have any four wheeler vehicle in his name, without verification, charge sheet was filed by presuming that a Santro Car belonged to accused. It was submitted, above material would indicate that allegations made against accused herein were without basis and at instances of persons inimical to him, without proper consideration impugned order was passed and same called for interference. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47732 CRL.RP No. 1531 of 2025 5. In support of his submission, learned counsel for petitioner relied upon decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kanchan Kumar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 9 SCC 577 and Karan Talwar v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2024 INSC 1012, for proposition that Court while considering application for discharge would be required to consider broad probabilities of case and total effect of material on record including examination of any infirmities appearing in prosecution case, that it would be required to sift through evidence and evaluate documents on record to find out if facts emerging therefrom, if taken at their face value would disclose a prima facie case against accused and not to act as mere post office of prosecution by accepting prosecution case as gospel truth. 6. On other hand, Sri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned counsel for respondent - ACB opposed petition and submitted that trial Court had examined material on record and arrived at conclusion that there was prima facie material to proceed with trial and there was no scope for interference with same in revision. Without disputing ratio laid down in decision relied upon by accused, it was submitted, insofar as prosecution for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47732 CRL.RP No. 1531 of 2025 offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (e) of POCA, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Soundirarasu and Ors., reported in 2023 (6) SCC 768, had held that it would suffice for prosecution to show that accused was in possession of assets beyond his known sources of income and thereafter, it would lie on accused to provide explanation for money/assets possessed by him. It was further submitted, at stage of consideration of application for discharge, trial Court would not be justified in holding mini trial or discuss inconsistencies in prosecution material. It was submitted, grounds urged by accused, would require trial. Thus, application for discharge was rightly rejected. 7. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and respondent and perused impugned order. 8. This revision petition is against an order rejecting application for discharge. Main grounds urged are firstly, that accused had continuously filed declaration of assets, annually from inception into service. Besides, allegation of amassing of assets beyond known source of income was by taking into account immovable properties, falling to share of accused in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47732 CRL.RP No. 1531 of 2025 family partition, as well as property gifted to his wife by her father. It is also contended, instead of value at time of purchase, current valuation of properties was being considered. It is also contended that while passing impugned order, trial Court did not referred to material on record to examine whether prosecution established prima facie case based on same. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanchan Kumar's case (supra) held: "12. Section 227CrPC relating to discharge is as under: “227. Discharge.—If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.” 13. The threshold of scrutiny required to adjudicate an application under Section 227CrPC, is to consider the broad probabilities of the case and the total effect of the material on record, including examination of any infirmities appearing in the case. In Prafulla Kumar Samal [Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 609] it was noted that : (SCC p. 9, para 10) “10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge: (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47732 CRL.RP No. 1531 of 2025 Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.” (emphasis supplied) 14. In Sajjan Kumar v. CBI [Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1371] , the Court cautioned against accepting every document produced by the prosecution on face value, and noted that it was important to sift the evidence produced before the Court. It observed that : (SCC pp. 376-77, para 21) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47732 CRL.RP No. 1531 of 2025 “21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge: *** (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.” (emphasis supplied) 15. Summarising the principles on discharge under Section 227CrPC, in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat [Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 361] , this Court recapitulated : (SCC p. 561, para 23) “23. At the stage of framing the charge in accordance with the principles which have been laid down by this Court, what the court is expected to do is, it does not act as a mere post office. The court must indeed sift the material before it. The material to be sifted would be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting is not to be meticulous in the sense that the court dons the mantle of the trial Judge hearing arguments after the entire evidence has been - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47732 CRL.RP No. 1531 of 2025 adduced after a full-fledged trial and the question is not whether the prosecution has made out the case for the conviction of the accused. All that is required is, the court must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is made out for the accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion suffices. However, a strong suspicion must be founded on some material. The material must be such as can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial. The strong suspicion cannot be the pure subjective satisfaction based on the moral notions of the Judge that here is a case where it is possible that the accused has committed the offence. Strong suspicion must be the suspicion which is premised on some material which commends itself to the court as sufficient to entertain the prima facie view that the accused has committed the offence.” (emphasis supplied) … … … … … … … … 21. The conclusions that we have drawn are based on materials placed before us, which are part of the case record. This is the same record that was available with the Special Judge (Vigilance) when the application under Section 227CrPC was taken up. Despite that, the Special Judge (Vigilance) dismissed the discharge application on the simple ground that a roving inquiry is not permitted at the stage of discharge. What we have undertaken is not a roving inquiry, but a simple and necessary inquiry for a proper adjudication of an application for discharge. The Special Judge (Vigilance) was bound to conduct a similar inquiry for coming to a conclusion that a prima facie case is made out for the appellant to stand trial. Unfortunately, the High Court committed the same mistake as that of the Special Judge (Vigilance)." - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47732 CRL.RP No. 1531 of 2025 10. In, Karan Talwar's case (supra) it is held: "11. When this be the position, the question is whether the two Courts were justified in holding that there is prima facie case against the appellant to proceed against him. In this contextual situation, it is relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in Dipakbhai Jagadishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat5 Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the said decision are relevant for the purpose of this case and they read thus:— “23. At the stage of framing the charge in accordance with the principles which have been laid down by this Court, what the court is expected to do is, it does not act as a mere post office. The court must indeed sift the material before it. The material to be sifted would be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting is not to be meticulous in the sense that the court dons the mantle of the trial Judge hearing arguments after the entire evidence has been adduced after a full-fledged trial and the question is not whether the prosecution has made out the case for the conviction of the accused. All that is required is, the court must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is made out for the accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion suffices. However, a strong suspicion must be founded on some material. The material must be such as can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial. The strong suspicion cannot be the pure subjective satisfaction based on the moral notions of the Judge that here is a case where it is possible that the accused has committed the offence. Strong suspicion must be the suspicion which is premised on some material which commends itself to the court as sufficient to entertain the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47732 CRL.RP No. 1531 of 2025 prima facie view that the accused has committed the offence." 11. At same time, in R. Soundirarasu's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified legal position regarding onus under Section 13 (1) (e) of POCA as follows: "83. Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act makes a departure from the principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden will always lie on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offences charged and never shifts on the accused to disprove the charge framed against him. The legal effect of Section 13(1)(e) is that it is for the prosecution to establish that the accused was in possession of properties disproportionate to his known sources of income but the term “known sources of income” would mean the sources known to the prosecution and not the sources known to the accused and within the knowledge of the accused. It is for the accused to account satisfactorily for the money/assets in his hands. The onus in this regard is on the accused to give satisfactory explanation. The accused cannot make an attempt to discharge this onus upon him at the stage of Section 239CrPC. At the stage of Section 239CrPC, the court has to only look into the prima facie case and decide whether the case put up by the prosecution is groundless." 12. In light of above ratio, perusal of impugned order reveals that after noting grounds urged by accused, in all but one sentence, trial Court concluded that said contentions cannot be considered at that stage and matter would require trial, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47732 CRL.RP No. 1531 of 2025 thereby transgressing requirement to sift through evidence and documents relied upon by prosecution and to examine whether prima facie case put up by prosecution is groundless or would substantiate prima facie case against accused. Conclusion arrived at being cryptic would warrant interference solely on this ground. Hence, revision petition is allowed; impugned order dated 19.07.2025 passed by Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, in SPL.C.no.168/2022, rejecting application for discharge is set-aside; matter is remitted back for consideration of application afresh and to pass appropriate orders based on adequate discussion/reasoning while taking note of ratio laid down in R.Soundirarasu and Karan Talwar (supra), by keeping all contentions on both sides open. In view of disposal of main petition, I.A.no.1/2025 application for stay is dismissed as unnecessary. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV/GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73