Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Shashidhar Jagdish Madyal on 9 June, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2957
CRL.RP No. 200038 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200038 OF 2021
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE
VIJAYAPURA,
REP. BY. SPL. PROSECUTOR LOKAYUKTA,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI-585107.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, SPL.PP)
AND:
Digitally signed SHASHIDHAR JAGDISH MADYAL
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: TAHASILDAR,
COURT OF HUBBALLI.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO, A) ALLOW TOP
NOTE PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
31.08.2020 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSION
JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE VIJAYAPUR IN SPECIAL (LOK) CASE
NO.2/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE FILE.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2957
CRL.RP No. 200038 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard Sri. Subhash Mallapur, learned Special
Public Prosecutor for the petitioner-Lokayukta and Sri.
Deepak V. Barad, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
2. Lokayukta, Vijayapura has preferred the present
revision petition against the order dated 31.08.2020 passed
in Special (Lok) Case No.2/2017, whereby, the respondent
has been discharged from the charge-sheet that has been
filed under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of
Prohibition of Corruption Act and under Section 465, 468,
471 read with Section 420 of IPC.
3. The facts in the nutshell for disposal of the
present revision petition are as under:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2957
HC-KAR
The respondent is working was Sheristedar in taluka
office, Vijayapura and later was promoted as Tahasildar.
Based on a source of information, the Karnataka Lokayukta,
Vijayapura, has started observing the income and
expenditure of the respondent and check period commenced
from 15.09.1990 to 22.11.2011. After keeping the track of
the income and expenditure, an FIR came to be filed and
investigation was conducted by the Lokayukta Police and
after thorough investigation and collection of necessary
documentary evidence on record, Lokayukta Police,
Vijayapura filed charge-sheet against the accused for the
aforesaid offences, contending that, there is excess income
of 122% than the sources known to the prosecution.
4. Cognizance of the offence were taken by the
learned Special Judge and later on accused was summoned.
5. The accused appeared before the Court and
thereafter filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.,
seeking his discharge from the case.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2957
HC-KAR
6. The learned trial Judge after entertaining
objections filed by the Lokayukta, heard the parties in detail
and allowed the application filed by the accused inter-alia
holding in paragraph Nos.25 to 28 as under:
25. Regarding the domestic expenditure, as per
the report of the Deputy Director of the Lokayukta, an
amount of Rs.13,79,161/- has been taken into
consideration as an expenditure of the accused which is
more than salary of the accused. Admittedly, the mother
of the accused is a pensioner and she is getting pension of
Rs.4,74,657/- which has not been taken into an income of
the accused and thereby, she is capable of maintaining
herself. Apart from this, the AGO is having a land and in
this area, they used to get vegetables, grams, serials from
their field only. It is stated in the material that the 1s t
daughter of the accused has studied in Sandur Girls
Residential School for the year 2009-10 and 2011-12
which is shown in page No.38 of Bhaga-7 and payment of
Rs.1,49,000/- is taken under the head of expenditure and
the 2nd daughter also student from 2009-10 to 2011 12
and the payment of Rs.1,49,000/- is taken under the head
of expenditure under the head of expenditure at
Sl.No.4.10. Therefore, the said amount has to be deducted
from the domestic expenditure. Apart from this, the
brother of the accused studied at Budha Rakitha
Residential School, Dharwad from 1993-1995 and he
student 10th stand from 1995-96 and he started earning
by LIC business as an agent and also getting income from
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2957
HC-KAR
general rental basis, which is found in page No.331 and
332 and 337 and 338 of bhaga -2 and he is also having an
exceeded income of taxable limit and paid income tax from
the year 2007-2011 and thereby, their domestic
expenditure can not be taken into consideration. It is also
alleged in the application that they are pure vegetarian
and an amount of Rs.75,621/- under the head, egg, fish
and meat can not be taken into consideration and only
1/3rd of the net salary of the accused can be taken into
consideration as an domestic expenses of the accused in
view of the laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India reported in AIR 1964 SC 464 page 471. Therefore,
an amount of Rs.3,83,181/- which is 1/3rd of the salary of
the accused can be taken into consideration as an
domestic expenditure. However, on the statement of the
Deputy Director of the Lokayukta an amount of
Rs.13,79,161/- has been taken as an domestic expenditure
of the accused, which is not correct. The accused and the
family members are residing in Vijayapura which is a
backward area and the standard of living is low in this
area. Apart from this, normally in this area the people
used to grow grams, serials, vegetables in their land for
their livelihood and they use the same for their livelihood.
Therefore, the report of the Deputy Director of the
Karnataka Lokayukta with regard to domestic expenditure
can not be totally accepted. This apart the mother of the
accused is a pensioner and she got an amount of
Rs.4,74,657/- as pension and thereby, she is capable of
maintaining her along with her another son who is the
brother of the AGO by name Manoj Madayal. Out of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2957
HC-KAR
Rs.13,79,161/- expenses of a person per year is
Rs.10,216/- as there are totally 135 members evaluation is
made by the domestic expenses of the Deputy Director of
the Kanrataka Lokayukta Bengaluru. Therefore, the
domestic expenses of a person per year comes to
Rs.1,94,104/-. Therefore, two persons' domestic expenses
comes to Rs.3,88,208/-if the report of the Deputy Director
of the Karnataka Lokayukta is accepted in toto. Therefore,
the said amount is liable to be deducted from
Rs.13,79,161/- , which comes to Rs.9,90,953/-. It is an
undisputed fact that the daughters of the accused are
studied at Sandur Girls Residential schools for the year
2009 to 2012 and the expenses of them is shown as
Rs.2,98,000/- in serial No.4.10 of the expenditure
statement. Therefore, the said amount of their expenses
can also be deducted from the domestic expenditure,
which comes to Rs.6,92,953/-. No doubt there is no
evidence collected by the prosecution with regard to the
residence of AGO and his family members. On the other
hand, the income of the mother of the AGO and his brother
is also not taken in to consideration. There are no
materials reveals that 1/3rd of the total net salary of the
AGO can be taken into consideration as a domestic
expenditure. However, considering the above materials on
record and the residence of the AGO of this area, one can
take into consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- as a domestic
expenditure of the AGO and it is also stated that , they are
vegetarian, no document is collected for the same. No
reply is given to the reply filed by the AGO by the
prosecution agency. No reason is assigned for rejecting the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2957
HC-KAR
same. Considering the over all materials, an amount of
Rs.7,00,000/- can be taken into consideration as domestic
expenditure of the accused and not Rs.13,79,161/- as
alleged by the prosecution considering the prosecution
records only. Therefore, Rs.6,79,161/- has to be deducted
from the domestic expenditure. Having regard to the
totality of the same, an amount of Rs.27,30,195/- can only
be taken in to consideration as an expenditure of the AGO
though the prosecution has stated that it is Rs.36,28,556/-
considering the records of the prosecution only in a proper
prospective.
26. Regarding the income of the AGO during the
check period, the prosecution has taken into consideration
Rs.30,09,973/- . There is no dispute with regard to 3.1 to
3.5 and 3.8 to 3.21 which to Rs.30,09,973/- and it is also
calculated by the prosecution agency. But it is alleged by
the accused that inspite of collecting agricultural report
found in page No.27 Bhaga - 6 showing the net income of
Rs.10,10,450/- and they have taken into consideration
only Rs.10,400/- in 3.5 of income statement of the AGO
and they have not taken into consideration remaining
amount of Rs.10,00,50/- as they have taken Rs.10,400/-
only. It is found in page 50 of bhaga-6 that the accused
received agricultural income after deducting expenditure of
agricultural income of Rs.10,10,450/- and they have not
taken into account Rs.10,00,050/- of the agricultural
income of the AGO though they have collected the same
and it is available at page No.27 of bhaga-6. Therefore,
again Rs.10,00,050/- has to be added to the agricultural
income of the accused in view of the records collected by
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2957
HC-KAR
the prosecution agency. Therefore, by adding the same it
comes to Rs.40,10,023/-.
27. It is also alleged by the accused that the loan
amount availed by the accused can be taken as an income
of the accused. It is undisputed fact that the accused has
availed loan of Rs.3,00,000/- by SBI Sindagi Branch on
28.2.2007 and the balance is Rs.2,53,566/- and the
prosecution has taken payment of interest to the said loan
about Rs.2,030/- and loan of Rs.30,000/- is shown in serial
No.4.35 under the expenditure statement 'D' and it is also
undisputed fact that the accused has availed a loan of
Rs.4,00,000/- from Krantiveera Sangollirayanna Credit Co-
Operative Society Ltd., Vijayapura and the same is found
in page No.115 of Bhaga-5 and the prosecution has
considered the payment of membership fee of Rs.2,000/-
in serial No.4.39 under the head of expenditure and also
serial 2.26 under the head of assets of Rs.40,000/-
towards the share amount and the said Rs.4,00,000/- has
to be taken into consideration of the income of the accused
and again the wife of the accused availed a loan of
Rs.4,00,000/- from the Krantiveera Sangollirayanna Credit
Co-Operative Society Ltd., Vijayapura and she has paid
membership fees of Rs.2,000/- which has been taken
under the head of expenditure in serial No.4.40 and also
Rs.40,000/- has been taken into account towards the
share amount of the loan in serial No.2.27 under the head
of asset and the said loan amount of Rs.4,00,000/- can
also be taken into consideration as an income of the AGO
and it is also alleged that the accused availed a loan of
Rs.8,00,000/- from Sri.Basaveshewar Urban Cooperative
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2957
HC-KAR
Credit Society Ltd. Galagali and the prosecution has taken
Rs.40,000/- as a share as an asset of the accused in
statement 'B' in serial No.2.28 and also as per the
endorsement at page 120 of bhaga-5, which reveals that
excluding the share amount Rs.7,55,950/- is shown as
balance which has not been taken into consideration by the
prosecution. Therefore, in all total amount of
Rs.18,53,566/- did not take into consideration as an
income of the accused though all the loans are prior to the
check period. Therefore, not taking into the said amount
as an income of the accused is only to deflate the value of
the income of the accused, which can not be ruled out.
Therefore, the said amount of Rs.18,53,566/- has to be
taken into consideration as an income of the AGO along
with the Rs.40,10,023/-, which comes to Rs.58,63,589/-,
which an income of the AGO considering the prosecution
records only.
28. Therefore, according to the prosecution, the
accused is having an assets of Rs.30,73,939/- and
expenditure of Rs.36,28,556/- and the income of the
accused is of Rs.30,09,973/- and thereby, the accused
person is having a disproportionate income of
Rs.36,92,524/- which is 122.6%, but considering the
valuation of the assets, expenditure and income of the
accused on the basis of the prosecution records only by
the court by analyzing the materials, the accused is having
an assets and expenditure, which comes to Rs.47,59,550/-
and income of accused is Rs.58,63,589/- and thereby, the
accused is having more income than the assets and
expenditure of Rs.11,04,039/-. Even the domestic
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2957
HC-KAR
expenses deducted of Rs.6,79,161/- is also taken into
consideration, the income of the accused is more than the
assets and expenditure of the accused. Therefore, the
prosecution can not made out a prima-facie case to frame
charge against the accused by cogent and considering
materials by analyzing the documents of the prosecution
only. Therefore, it is clear that after analyzing and
assessing and determining the head of assets, expenditure
and income as per the records of the prosecution, it
indicates that the investigating officer exorbitantly inflated
the value of the assets and expenditure and he has
deflated the value of the income of agriculture and also
ignored the additional income which are loan availed by
the accused, which are also his known source of income,
which is erroneous, illegal and unsustainable under law
and thereby, the prosecution case is not tenable against
the accused. Having regard to the same, the prosecution
has failed to make out a prima-facie case for framing
charge against the accused U/s.13 (1)(e) r/w.Sec.13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, the accused is
entitled for discharge as there are no sufficient materials to
proceed against the accused of the offence punishable
U/s.13 (1)(e) r/w.Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and U/s.465, 468, 471 r/w.Sec.420 of IPC
and thereby, the application filed by the accused U/s.227
and 239 of Cr.P.C is entitled to be allowed by discharging
the accused. In result, I proceed to pass the following
order;
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2957
HC-KAR
7. Being aggrieved by the same, Lokayukta Police
Vijayapura, has preferred the present revision petition on the
following grounds:
7. The order passed by the court below is
contrary to the facts of the case besides being erroneous
hence the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
8. The court below will not weigh the evidence
and it could only see as to weigh prima facie case has
been made out. The stage of appreciating the evidence
for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to whether
the prosecution was able to bring home the charge
against the accused would arise only after all the evidence
is brought on record at the time of trial.
9. (i) It could be seen that the apex court in state
by Anti Corruption Bureau V/s. Suriya Prakash 1999 SCC
(Crl) 373.
(ii) The judgement of the Apex court in state of
Tamilnadu by Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti
Corruption V/s. N.Suresh Rajan and others 2014 (1) MLI
(Crl) 315 Supreme Court.
(iii) The Judgement of the Apex Court in
Hemachand V/s. The State of Jarkhand 2008 (5) SCC 13.
Wherein, all the above decisions it is held that court
can consider the documents collected by the investigating
officer and also the court will not weigh the evidence and
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2957
HC-KAR
Hon'ble Special Court would only have to see whether
prima facie case has been made out for framing charges.
10. The court below has committed a grave error
by relying on the statement shown by the accused by
which considering the discharge application without
proper appreciation of the documents produced by the
investigation officer, moreover the arguments addressed
on behalf of the accused were without evidence and the
same cannot be considered with there being a trial hence
the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law. It
is submitted that it could be seen in paragraph number
16, 19, 20 and 21 of the order of the Special Judge that
the reasons given by the Court arrived a wrong conclusion
about golden and silver articles, household articles,
reduced the domestic expenditure and also deleted the
cultivation expenditure etc. without trial which has led
into gross miscarriage of justice.
11. That the order of the court below has wrongly
considered the 1/3 of the net salary of the accused for
domestic expenditure is wrong. The learned Special Judge
has not properly appreciated the principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1964 Supreme Court
464.
12. That the court below has committed a blunder
by passing order of discharge by taking the loan amount
as income of the accused and holding that loan amount is
an income of the accused without proper evidence which
has led into gross miscarriage of justice. That court below
has failed to consider the facts and has committed an
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2957
HC-KAR
error by accepting the arguments, orally, documentary
evidence advanced by the accused without which have
put only appreciated at time of trial therefore impugned
order is untenable and same deserves to be set aside.
13. Viewed for any angle the order passed by the
court below is perverse illogical besides being erroneous
hence the same is liable to be set aside.
14. The petitioner seeks liberty to urge the grounds
at the time of final arguments during the circumstance of
the case.
The appellant submits that they have not filed any
appeal against the judgment and award passed by the
court below before any other court and they are pending.
8. Sri. Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel appearing
for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in
the petition contended that, the trial Judge has undertaken
the task of holding a mini trial at the time of considering
discharge application which is impermissible under law and
procedure. Thus, allowing the application filed by the
respondent has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought
for allowing the revision petition.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2957
HC-KAR
9. Per contra, Sri. Deepak V. Barad, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-accused supports the
impugned order.
10. Sri. Deepak V. Barad, would further contend that,
the respondent worked as a Sheristedar in the taluka Office
and later he was promoted as Tahasildar and therefore, his
income was on upward trend.
11. He also pointed out that the agricultural income is
not properly accounted by the Lokayukta, whereas, the
documentary evidence collected by the Investigating Agency
itself would show that the sugarcane crop sold by the
accused to the Renuka Sugars showed the income of
Rs.2,00,000/- and odd and whereas, the Investigating
Officer has taken the agricultural income more than
Rs.10,00,000/- which has resulted in disparity in the income
and expenditure.
12. He would further point out that, the sources
known to the prosecution itself is taken into account by the
learned trial Judge especially in paragraph No.28 and there is
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2957
HC-KAR
a clear finding recorded by the learned trial Judge in the
impugned order that the accused has more income than the
expenditure and therefore, the calculation arrived at by the
Lokayukta in holding that there is an excess assets held by
the accused to the tune of 122% than his income cannot be
countenanced in law. Therefore, allowing the application filed
by the accused and discharging the accused from the
criminal case is just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case and sought for dismissal of the
revision petition.
13. Having heard the arguments from both sides, this
Court has perused the material on record meticulously.
14. On such perusal of the material on record, the
learned trial Judge has dealt the income and expenditure in
detail. So also the assets held by the accused as is revealed
in the charge-sheet has been taken into account by the
learned trial Judge while passing the impugned order.
15. The learned trial Judge has recorded a categorical
finding that the income shown by the investigation agency in
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2957
HC-KAR
paragraph Nos.3.1 to 3.5 and 3.7 to 3.21 under the head of
income vide statement 'C' is not disputed by the accused.
16. However, he has noted that, the dispute is only
with regard to the item No.3.6 in statement 'C', wherein, in
the agricultural income there is disparity.
17. Likewise, the membership of the accused in
Kranthiveera Sangolli Rayanna Credit Co-operative Society
Ltd., Vijayapura, wherein, the wife of the accused has
availed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as loan and in respect of the
same, the expenditure made is not given due deduction by
the investigation agency.
18. Further, the trial Judge has also taken into note
the loan amount availed by Shri. Basaveshwara Urban Co-
operative Credit Society Ltd., Galagali, to the tune of
Rs.8,00,000/- and investment of share amount of
Rs.40,000/- is not properly considered by the investigation
agency.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2957
HC-KAR
19. In other words, the learned trial Judge noted that,
even as per the documents collected by the investigation
agency, while arriving at the income and assets, the
investigation agency has made prima-facie errors whereby
the trial Judge has recorded a categorical finding that the
accused has more income than the assets held by him.
20. Further, it is settled principles of law, and
requires no emphasis that an order of discharge would not
amount to an order of acquittal. The order of discharge has
the effect of temporarily closing the pending criminal case.
21. It is always open for the investigation agency to
collect the additional material evidence so as to probabalize
the allegations leveled against the accused and file fresh
charge-sheet against the accused.
22. Reserving such liberty for the Lokayukta Police,
Vijayapura, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the
material on record would not call for interference by this
Court by setting aside the impugned order.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2957
HC-KAR
23. Accordingly, the following order:
ORDER
The revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
SVH
CT:PK
