Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/857/2026 of SRI H G CHIKKA NARAYANA GOWDA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 2 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:33368 CRL.RP No. 857 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 857 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI H G CHIKKA NARAYANA GOWDA S/O GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/ A
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 857 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI H G CHIKKA NARAYANA GOWDA
S/O GUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/A NO.245, 10TH MAIN ROAD
KUVEMPU BADAVANE,
BANGARPET-563 155.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE
KOLAR. REPRESENTED BY THE SPL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU- 560 001.
2.
SRI NAGENDRA KUMAR C @ BUJJI
S/O H K CHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT N G HULLUR CROSS
KYASAMBALLI HOBLI,K G F TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 116.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S.PRASAD,SPL P.P. FOR LOKAYUTKA
FOR R1; R2 SERVED)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401(FILED U/S.438
R/W SEC.442 BNSS) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO a. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2026
PASSED IN SPL.C(CORRUPTION) NO.10/2024 IN DISMISSING
THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.227 OF CRPC
BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT
KOLAR.B. ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S.227 OF CRPC IN
SPL.C(C)NO.10/2024 AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FROM
THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/US/7(a) OF PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
This matter is listed for admission.
2. Heard the petitioner counsel and counsel for the respondent.
3. This petition is filed against the rejection of the application filed under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the charge sheet filed against the accused under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’ for short).
4. The factual matrix of the case are that on 03.05.2019, the complainant through online applied for
HC-KAR
conversion of his 1.08 guntas of land into non-agriculture. The said file was transferred temporary injunction the accused who was Revenue Inspector in Kyasamballi Nada Kacheri. The accused retained the file despite inspecting the place. When the complainant approached him to know the status of his application, then the accused threatened him that since he has already constructed the building, he would see that fine is slapped and demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe to give a favourable report. The accused reiterated the same on 13.05.2019 in a phone call between C.W.2 and accused himself, arragned by the complainant. However, the trap was not successful. The investigating officer based upon the electronic evidence and other material, submitted the charge sheet. The discharge of the accused is sought mainly on the ground that in order to constitute an offence under Section 7(a) of the P.C. Act, demand and acceptance is sine-qua-non. In the case on hand, there is no demand and no acceptance. The trap is not successful. Considering the material available on record, the Sessions Court dismissed the
HC-KAR
application of accused and order to frame the charge against the accused. Being aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner is before this Court in this revision.
4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly relies on the conversation between the complainant relative and also the accused and also the complainant's statement, wherein the present revision petitioner has demanded the amount and also the Sessions Court while rejecting the application taken note of in paragraph No.11 that there was a conversation and also there is a CD. When prima-facie material is there with regard to the demand is concerned, the question of entertaining the discharge application does not arise.
5. Having considered the reasoning and also the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner that there is no specific demand to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. But it is clear in the conversation that there is a suggestion for making demand and already spoken about the amount with the complainant and when
HC-KAR
such material available before the Court and also the CD, the same is subject matter of trial and at this juncture, while considering the application filed under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court cannot conduct any mini trial and only to see that whether there are material of strong suspicion to proceed against the revision petitioner. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to entertain the petition and for setting aside the rejection of application filed under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the Revision Petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of revision petition, pending Interlocutory application stands disposed of.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64