- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28930 CRL.RP No. 800 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.800 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI KANTHARAJU M.C., S/O. CHALUVAIAH, AGED 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASST. DIRECTOR, RURAL EMPLOYMENT, KUNIGAL, RESIDING AT AJJAIAHANAPALYA, KANNASANDRA, NARASANDRA POST, MADIGONDANAHALLI, KUDUR HOBLI, BENGALURU RURAL - 562 127. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NITHIN GOWDA C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE STATION, TUMKURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28930 CRL.RP No. 800 of 2026 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.03.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE TUMAKURU, IN SPL.CASE NO.735/2025 THEREBY REJECTING THE DISCHARGE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 UNDER SECTION 250 OF BNSS 2023, IN THE PRESENT WHICH HAS BEEN REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT/POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(a) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT (AMENDMENT ACT 2018) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION THEREBY DISCHARGING THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN THE PRESENT CASE (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A). THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 2. The order impugned before this Court is the rejection of application filed under Section 250 of BNSS, wherein prayer is sought for discharge of accused No.1. 3. The case of accused No.1/revision petitioner before the Trial Court is that based on the written complaint filed by the complainant, FIR is lodged against accused No.1 and another on 28.04.2023 in Crime No.3/2023 by the Lokayuktha - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28930 CRL.RP No. 800 of 2026 Police, Tumakuru, who have registered FIR for the offence punishable Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. The counsel for accused No.1 has contended that after registering the FIR, the Lokayuktha Police have apprehended the petitioner and remanded him to judicial custody. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet is filed against accused No.1 and another. It is contended in the discharge application that he is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Further, it is contended that the transcripts during the alleged voice recording in the entrustment mahazar fail to shed light on any demand attributable on the part of accused No.1. In the absence of demand on the part of accused No.1, his implication in the present case is highly arbitrary and hence, application for discharge deserves to be allowed. The learned counsel contended that there are discrepancies in conducting the mahazar i.e., staff mahazar and recovery mahazar and even the voice recording during the trap mahazar does not disclose any demand made by accused No.1 and he has been falsely implicated in the case. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28930 CRL.RP No. 800 of 2026 4. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent contended that based on the complaint, case was registered and trap was conducted and recovery was made at the instance of the accused and the same is the bait money and all these factors requires to be considered only during the course of trial. The grounds which have been urged in the discharge application cannot be decided without conducting the trial. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, comes to the conclusion that it is not a case for discharge and the grounds which have been urged by the petitioner to be considered only during the course of trial and not at the time of discharge. There was a trap mahazar and pre-trap mahazar was also made and there are FSL report, voice recordings, seizure mahazar and statement of witnesses and hence, there is a clear material showing demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by accused No.1 and also the tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of accused No.1 and hand turned into pink colour confirming the presence of Phenolphthalein. The scientific evidence corroborates the prosecution case beyond preliminary suspicion and all these materials to be considered only during the course - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28930 CRL.RP No. 800 of 2026 of trial and when such material is available before the Court, the question of discharging accused No.1 does not arise. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the amount which was recovered is towards the tax payable by the complainant and the petitioner has been falsely implicated and also there are clear discrepancies in the investigation. The learned counsel would submit that the Trial Court not considered the material on record and ought to have discharged the petitioner. 6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent reiterates the grounds, which have been taken before the Trial Court and submits that it is a clear case of trial. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and also considering the material on record, it is not in dispute that there was a trap and before conducting the trap, pre-trap mahazar was also drawn by securing the panch witnesses. The recovery is made at the instance of accused No.1 and whether that amount is towards the tax payable by the complainant or not cannot be decided without - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28930 CRL.RP No. 800 of 2026 conducting the trial. The Court has to take note of only that material collected by the Investigating Officer is fit to try the accused. Having considered the material on record, particularly mentioned in paragraph No.11 of the order of the Trial Court with regard to the complaint, trap mahazar, pre-trap mahazar, FSL report, voice recording, seizure mahazar and statement of witnesses, the same has to be tested during the trial and hence, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court in rejecting the discharge application and it requires full-fledged trial. Hence, no ground is made out to interfere with the order of the Trial Court by exercising the revisional powers and hence, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46