- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:461 CRL.RP No. 100124 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100124 OF 2025 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION HAVERI-581 110 TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT SHAKUNTALA VEERAYYA HIREMATH AGE 66 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT WOMAN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING HAVERI 581110 R/O. B-BLOCK 11TH CROSS, BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, HAVERI 581110 TQ AND DIST HAVERI, …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.G. INDI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 R/W SECTION 442 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN SPECIAL CASE (SVC) NO. 5/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, HAVERI AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2023 PASSED BY THE PRL DIST AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, HAVERI ON APPLICATION FILED U/S 227 OF CR.P.C., IN SPECIAL CASE (SVC) NO 05/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 13(1) (e) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:461 CRL.RP No. 100124 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard the Sri.Anil Kale and Sri.B.G.Indi, for Sri.K.L.Patil, the parties. 2. The order under challenge is the allowing of the application filed by the accused under Section 227 and 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’ for short) seeking discharge of the accused in the Special Case (SVC) No.5 of 2018. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are under: The revision petitioner Lokayuktha-Haveri, filed a charge sheet against the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 4. Learned trial Judge after taking cognizance of the alleged offences, was proceeding with the case and at that juncture, an application under Sections 227 and 239 of the Cr.P.C. came to be filed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:461 CRL.RP No. 100124 of 2025 5. According to the accused, the explanation offered by him was not taken into consideration and an incorrect charge sheet came to be filed. The assets noted therein formed the basis for the prosecution to file the charge sheet under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, which, according to the accused did not tally with his known sources of income to the prosecution. After appearing before the Court, the accused filed the application, explaining the excess amount alleged by the prosecution and furnished the necessary documents in support of his explanation. 6. It is also contented on behalf of the accused that 10% of the assets which are possessed by the accused needs to be excluded while computing the excess amount, in accordance with the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishnanand Agnihotri v. State of Madhya Pradesh1, wherein it was held that if the excess assets are comparatively small and less than ten percent of the total income, the assets cannot be held disproportionate to known sources of income. Therefore, the explanation offered by the accused is just and proper and sought discharge of the accused from the pending criminal proceedings under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. 1 (1977) 1 SCC 816 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:461 CRL.RP No. 100124 of 2025 7. Learned trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the prosecution, considered the material placed on record by the prosecution and the accused in detail in the impugned order and noted that the excess income calculated by the prosecution in the form of charge sheet is properly explained by the accused. Further, applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishnanand Agnihotri (supra), the learned trial Judge held that the accused was entitled to discharge. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, Lokayuktha-Haveri is before this Court in this revision on the following grounds:  “The order under challenge is erroneous, illegal and the discharge of the accused before framing of charge is based on the materials/documents placed by the accused is highly illegal, arbitrary and against the settled propositions of law hence the same requires to be set aside.  The order impugned is the mini trial on the application of the accused for discharge therefore the learned trial judge has erred in discharging the accused without proceeding for trial, when there are ample materials available on record against the accused and there are sufficient grounds available on record to show that the prima facie case is made out against the accused hence the discharge of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:461 CRL.RP No. 100124 of 2025 accused is erroneous and the same required to be set aside.  It is submitted that the Special Judge has failed to appreciate that at the stage of framing of charge consideration of application for discharge, the court is to consider whether there is any prima facie case made out against the accused or not and at that stage the court is required to evaluate the material and documents relied on by the prosecution only with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom, if taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all ingredients constituting the offence or not. But in the case on hand the learned trial judge, based on the documents produced by the accused without considering the objections of the prosecution and without going for trial believed the documents and statements of the accused which were based on disputed questions of fact which could have been decided only after trial. hence the order impugned is required to be set aside.  Further it is submitted that the special Court has erroneously believed the version of the accused without there being any material on record substantiating the fact that the permission was obtained from the Government prior to purchase of the properties and documents produced regarding the income from the rent and agriculture income are to be considered only at the time of trial the Special Court placing reliance on the said documents has blindly believed the version of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:461 CRL.RP No. 100124 of 2025 respondent/accused and erroneously come to the conclusion that the income of the respondent is Rs.85,91,152/- during the check period and also believed the total value of the movable and immovable assets and expenditure of the accused, therefore the said exercise undertaken by the Special Court while discharging the accused is erroneous hence the impugned order required to be set aside.  It is most respectfully submitted that the prosecution has already submitted relevant materials along with the charge sheet which prima facie establishes the value of the assets and expenditure and the total income of the respondent and the respondent has to prove her defense during the course of trial by leading cogent evidence on record and the rent agreements do not prima facie disclose the income and the declaration made by the respondent is to be established since the prosecution has also produced the relevant materials to show the income and expenditure of the respondent, therefore the order impugned order required to be set aside.  Further the Special Judge while discharging the accused has held that the prosecution sanction accorded by the authority is without application of mind. The said reasoning is also erroneous as the validity of sanction is required to be considered during the course of trial and any error in according the said sanction would not absorb the guilt of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:461 CRL.RP No. 100124 of 2025 accused. Therefore, the said reasoning and the finding of the Learned Special Judge are bad in Law and further the Prosecution sanction is accorded by the competent authority with due application of mind by considering the materials available against the respondents therefore the order impugned required to the set aside.  It is most respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Rajasthan V/s Ashok Kumar Kashyap decided in Criminal Appeal No.407/2021 has held that while exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine weather a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, is not necessary for the court to enter into the Pros and Cons of the matter or into weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court after the trial. And it was held that the court is required to consider whether a Prima facia case has been made out or not and whether the accused is required to be further tried or not. At the stage of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application, the Mini Trail is not permissible. Therefore, the Special Judge has looked into the defense of the accused while considering the discharge application which is an erroneous approach and the same is required to be set aside.  It is most respectfully submitted that Hon’ble Apex in a latest judgment decided in a Criminal Appeal - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:461 CRL.RP No. 100124 of 2025 No.2504/2023 in the case of State of Gujarat V/s Dilipshinh and Kishorisinh Rao Kishorisinh Rao has held that while discharging the accused the defense of the accused cannot be looked into, therefore looking from a all angles the order impugned is an erroneous and the same is required to be set aside.” 9. Sri.Anil Kale, learned counsel for the revision petitioner retreating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contented that at the time of considering discharge, what is to be taken note of is only the prosecution material on record and not the defence material, that has been put forward as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi2. Therefore, he submitted that approach of the trial Court is erroneous and sought for allowing the revision petition and a direction to continue the trial against the respondent. 10. Per contra, Sri.B.G.Indi, learned counsel representing the accused on behalf of Sri.K.L.Patil, would contend that the principles of law enunciated in Debendra Nath Padhi (supra) cannot be disputed. However, in a matter of this nature, where the allegation is that the accused has possessed disproportionate 2 (2005) 1 SCC 568 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:461 CRL.RP No. 100124 of 2025 assets, the principles of law enunciated in Debendra Nath Padhi (supra) would not be strictly applicable inasmuch as the offence would get completed before the Court and not before the Investigating Authority. 11. Therefore, explanation if any offered by the accused, if not considered by the Investigation Officer, can be placed before the Court inasmuch as unwanted trial should not be allowed to continue and accused need not undergo the ordeal of the long drawn trial, when the explanation offered by the accused is sufficient enough to hold that the charge is not prima facie maintainable against the accused. Therefore, the order of the trial Judge is just and proper and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 12. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of the material on record, there cannot be any dispute that, at the time of considering discharge, only the prosecution papers are to be considered to determine whether any offence has been made out or not. However, an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act stands on a different - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:461 CRL.RP No. 100124 of 2025 footing, inasmuch as the explanation of the accused is also to be taken note of before a charge sheet is filed. 14. In the case on hand, according to the accused such an explanation was offered, but the Investigation Officer did not take that explanation into consideration, particularly regarding domestic expenses etc., which has been dealt with in extenso by the learned trial Judge in the impugned order. 15. The nature of the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act would make it clear that the offence would be complete when the accused fails to offer a reasonable, plausible or possible explanation to the assets held, which are in excess to the known sources of income and Courts are not precluded to accept the same, if it is in the usual course of the life that the expenses were incurred by the accused and income was earned by the accused during the relevant period. 16. In the case on hand, the Investigation Officer is of the opinion that during the relevant period, the income and expenditure did not tally and according to the known sources of the prosecution, the accused held excess assets to the tune of 69% over the known source of income. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:461 CRL.RP No. 100124 of 2025 17. However, according to the accused, the very arrival of the excess holding of assets to the tune of 69% is per se incorrect and offered the explanation on each and every item, which has been considered by the learned trial Judge while passing the impugned order. 18. Therefore, even though there cannot be any dispute as to the principles of law enunciated in Debendra Nath Padhi (supra), and Rajnish Kumar Biswakarma v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5290 of 2024, it is clear that in cases of alleged possession of disproportionate assets under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, the explanation offered by the accused can and must be taken into consideration at the stage of discharge. Where such explanation is reasonable and substantiated, no offence can be said to be made out, and framing of charge would not be justified. 19. Having regard to the nature of offence, this Court is of the opinion that there is no strict bar to considering the explanation of the accused. If the explanation is accepted, no offence can be made out and charge cannot be framed. Thus, the approach of the trial Court is just and proper. It is pertinent - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:461 CRL.RP No. 100124 of 2025 to note that an order of discharge cannot, at any given point of time, be equated with an order of acquittal. 20. Discharge constitutes a temporary closure of the offences alleged against the accused. If the Investigation Agency is in a position to collect any additional material which would fortify the alleged offences, it is always at liberty to file supplementary or additional charge sheet, as contemplated under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. or Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, in accordance with law. 21. With that liberty to the Investigation Agency, the following order: ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR/-CT-CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 22