Dismissed¶46

Sri H G Chikka Narayana Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2026CRL.RP/857/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Discharge under Section 227 CrPC refused; charge under Section 7(a) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; contention that demand and acceptance are sine qua non rejected; prima facie material of bribe demand found in phone conversation and CD; no mini trial at discharge stage; strong suspicion standard; alleged bribe Rs.10,000; online application for conversion of 1.08 guntas of land to non-agriculture; unsuccessful trap; electronic evidence; Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Kolar; Revenue Inspector accused; revision against framing of charge dismissed (2026).

What did the court decide?

While considering an application filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court cannot conduct any mini trial; it is only to see whether there is material of strong suspicion to proceed against the revision petitioner. ¶46

Sri H G Chikka Narayana Gowda Vs State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to discharge under Section 227 CrPC, his contention being that demand and acceptance are sine qua non for an offence under Section 7(a) of the PC Act and that in this case there was no demand and no acceptance. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

When prima facie material is there with regard to the demand, the question of entertaining the discharge application does not arise.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

¶46

Key takeaways

It is clear from the conversation that there is a suggestion for making demand and the amount was already spoken about with the complainant; the CD is subject matter of trial, so there is no ground to set aside the rejection of the Section 227 application.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (CRL.RP No. 857 of 2026, High Court of Karnataka, decided 02.07.2026, H.P. Sandesh, J.) by the accused, a Revenue Inspector in Kyasamballi Nada Kacheri, against the order dated 04.04.2026 in Spl.C(Corruption) No.10/2024 (Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar) dismissing his discharge application under Section 227 CrPC; he is chargesheeted under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for allegedly demanding Rs.10,000 as bribe from a complainant who had applied online on 03.05.2019 for conversion of 1.08 guntas of land into non-agriculture; the demand was allegedly reiterated on 13.05.2019 in a phone call between C.W.2 and the accused, but the trap failed and the charge sheet rests on electronic evidence including a CD of the conversation. Held: (i) when prima facie material as to demand exists, the question of entertaining the discharge application does not arise; (ii) while considering a Section 227 application the Court cannot conduct a mini trial and is only to see whether there is material of strong suspicion to proceed; (iii) the conversation shows a suggestion of demand and the amount was already spoken about with the complainant, the CD being a matter for trial. Revision petition dismissed; pending interlocutory application disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:33368 CRL.RP No. 857 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 857 OF 2026

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI H G CHIKKA NARAYANA GOWDA S/O GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/A NO.245, 10^TH MAIN ROAD KUVEMPU BADAVANE, BANGARPET-563 155.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE KOLAR. REPRESENTED BY THE SPL PUBLIC Digitally signed PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING by DEVIKA M BENGALURU- 560 001. Location: HIGH COURT OF 2. SRI NAGENDRA KUMAR C @ BUJJI KARNATAKA 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.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. B.S.PRASAD,SPL P.P. FOR LOKAYUTKA FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:33368 CRL.RP No. 857 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

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.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This matter is listed for admission.

¶24

Heard the petitioner counsel and counsel for the

¶25

respondent.

¶26

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

¶27

under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’ for short).

¶28

The factual matrix of the case are that on 03.05.2019, the complainant through online applied for

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33368 CRL.RP No. 857 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

conversion of his 1.08 guntas of land into non-agriculture.

¶32

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.

¶33

The trap is not successful. Considering the material available on record, the Sessions Court dismissed the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:33368 CRL.RP No. 857 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

application of accused and order to frame the charge against the accused. Being aggrieved by the said order,

¶38

the revision petitioner is before this Court in this revision.

¶39

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly

¶40

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

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33368 CRL.RP No. 857 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

such material available before the Court and also the CD,

¶46

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.

¶47

In view of dismissal of revision petition, pending Interlocutory application stands disposed of.

¶48

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶49

SSD

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64

Sri H G Chikka Narayana Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H G Chikka Narayana Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Akrama Khan Vs Syed Jamalauddin

Sri. Lokesh. L Vs Sri. Govindraj Nambi

Sri Kumar Naika @ Dinesha Vs Sri H C Halappa

H R Bhagavan Das Vs Anti Corruption Bureau

Sri. Vijayakumar B.C Vs M/S Mci Bangalore Finance (R)

Smt. C a Vijayalakshmi Vs Smt. Lily Mary