IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH 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 2^ND 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, Digitally signed by REP BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

GEETHAKUMARI …RESPONDENT PARLATTAYA S Location: High [BY SRI VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE (PH)]

Court of Karnataka 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:

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 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, 2^nd 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.

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 no