- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4961 CRL.RP No. 1286 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1286 OF 2019 BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY POLICE INSPECTOR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA CHITRADURGA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. R. SEVYA NAIKA EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CITY CORPORATION DAVANAGERE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.1775/41-42 VINAYAKA EXTENSION NITUVALLI VILLAGE DAVANAGERE …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.08.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN SPL.C(LOKAYUKTHA)04/2016. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4961 CRL.RP No. 1286 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER The State is before this Court in this criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C with a prayer to set aside the order dated 08.08.2018 passed in Spl.C.(Lokayukta).No.4/2016 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The respondent herein was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act in Crime No.15/2013 and a case was registered against him before the jurisdictional Court of Special Judge in Spl.C.(Lokayukta).No.4/2016. In the said proceedings, the respondent had filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C with a prayer to discharge him of the charge sheeted offences. The said application was opposed by the prosecution by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned dated 08.08.2018, had allowed the application filed by the respondent under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4961 CRL.RP No. 1286 of 2019 Section 227 of Cr.P.C and being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-State is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in this petition submits that the Trial Court has held a mini trial at the stage of considering an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C, which is not permissible. He submits that the explanation offered by the accused has been taken into consideration at this stage and the order impugned has been passed, which is not permissible. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. R. Soundirarasu and others reported in (2023) 6 SCC 768. 5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent- accused has argued in support of the impugned order and submits that the prosecution had failed to make out a prima facie case against the respondent and therefore, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4961 CRL.RP No. 1286 of 2019 Trial Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order discharging the respondent of the charge sheeted offences. He submits that unless a prima facie case is made out against a Government servant, he cannot be asked to stand trial for the alleged offences. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. According to the prosecution, the respondent- accused possessed disproportionate assets to the tune of 154.67% when compared to his known source of income for the check period from 06.11.1987 to 26.09.2013. The officers attached to the Lokayukta Police at Chitradurga had conducted raid to the house of the respondent, his office and had collected materials in support of the allegations made against the accused and had filed a charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. According to the prosecution, the accused had disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs.1,48,24,083/-. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4961 CRL.RP No. 1286 of 2019 7. The learned Trial Judge while considering the application filed by the respondent-accused under Section 227 of Cr.P.C, virtually has held a mini trial and based on the explanations offered by the accused has proceeded to pass the impugned order discharging the accused for the charge sheeted offences. 8. It is trite that at the stage of considering an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C, the Trial Court is required to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out by the prosecution against the accused to stand trial for the alleged offences. The Trial Court, on the other hand, has virtually held a threadbare enquiry and has given a clean chit to the accused at the stage of considering his application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C, which is not permissible. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Soundirarasu (supra) in paragraph Nos.41, 42 and 83 of its judgment has observed as follows: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4961 CRL.RP No. 1286 of 2019 41. While the expression "known sources of income" refers to the sources known to the prosecution, the expression "for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account" refers to the onus or burden on the accused to satisfactorily explain and account for the assets found to be possessed by the public servant. This burden is on the accused as the said facts are within his special knowledge. Section 106 of the Evidence Act applies. The Explanation to Section 13(1)(e) is a procedural section which seeks to define the expression "known sources of income" as sources known to the prosecution and not to the accused. The Explanation applies and relates to the mode and manner of investigation to be conducted by the prosecution, it does away with the requirement and necessity of the prosecution to have an open, wide and roving investigation and enquire into the alleged sources of income which the accused may have. It curtails the need and necessity of the prosecution to go into the alleged sources of income which a public servant may or possibly have but are not legal or have not been declared. The undeclared alleged sources are by their very nature are expected to be known to the accused only and are within his special knowledge. (emphasis supplied) The effect of the Explanation is to clarify and reinforce the existing position and understanding of the expression "known sources of income" i.e. the expression refers to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4961 CRL.RP No. 1286 of 2019 sources known to the prosecution and not sources known to the accused. The second part of the Explanation does away with the need and requirement for the prosecution to conduct an open ended or roving enquiry or investigation to find out all alleged/claimed known sources of income of an accused who is investigated under the PC Act, 1988. The prosecution can rely upon the information furnished by the accused to the authorities under law, rules and orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. No further investigation is required by the prosecution to find out the known sources of income of the accused public servant. As noticed above, the first part of the Explanation refers to income received from legal/lawful sources. This first part of the expression states the obvious as is clear from the judgment of this Court in N. Ramakrishnaiah." 42. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid that the expression "known source of income" is not synonymous with the words "for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account." The two expressions connote and have different meaning, scope and requirements. 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4961 CRL.RP No. 1286 of 2019 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 239 CrPC. At the stage of Section 239 CrPC, the court has to only look into the prima facie case and decide whether the case put up by the prosecution is groundless." 10. From the aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that the right of the accused to offer his explanation is only during the course of trial and not prior to the same. 11. Under the circumstances, the Trial Court was not justified in passing the impugned order discharging the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4961 CRL.RP No. 1286 of 2019 respondent-accused of the charge sheeted offences. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 08.08.2018 passed in Spl.C.(Lokayukta)No.4/2016 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to proceed against the respondent-accused in accordance with law. The Registry is directed to forthwith return the Trial Court records. Since the parties are represented before this Court, the respondent-accused is directed to appear before the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4961 CRL.RP No. 1286 of 2019 Trial Court on 16.02.2026 without awaiting for further notice from the said Court. It is needless to state that the Trial Court shall make endeavours to dispose of the case on merits as expeditiously as possible. SD/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32