The Supreme Court has acquitted two former Gujarat public servants in a nearly three-decade-old bribery case, holding that mere recovery of a currency note from an accused is insufficient to sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act when the prosecution fails to prove the initial demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar allowed the appeals filed by Rafikmiya Ahmedmiya Malek and Sirajbhai Rasulbhai Vora and set aside their conviction under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The judgment was delivered on August 19, 2026.
The Court also held that the prosecution could not rely upon the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act merely because ₹20 was recovered from one of the accused. The Court reiterated that the prosecution must first establish the initial demand for illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt before the presumption under Section 20 can operate.
The case arose from an incident in 1996, when the complainant, Hasmukhbhai Maganbhai Chauhan, was pursuing his education and required an Income Certificate to avail certain concessions.
He approached the Mamlatdar on February 6, 1996, and his application was forwarded to the Talati-cum-Mantri of Village Bechri. According to the prosecution, on February 7, 1996, the Talati-cum-Mantri demanded ₹120, stating that ₹100 was for himself and ₹20 was to be given to the Panchayat Peon. The demand was allegedly repeated on February 14, 1996.
On February 19, 1996, the complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau and lodged a complaint. A trap was thereafter organised.
According to the prosecution, when the complainant went to collect the Income Certificate, he gave a ₹20 currency note to the Peon, who placed it in his pocket. The pre-determined signal was then given and the raiding party arrived.
The Trial Court held that the accused were public servants and found the demand proved against the Talati-cum-Mantri, though it did not find any demand proved against the Peon.
The Trial Court also found that the prosecution had failed to establish a criminal conspiracy between the two accused under Section 120B IPC.
Despite this, both accused were convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to imprisonment, including one year of rigorous imprisonment under Section 13(1)(d) and six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,000 under Section 7.
The Gujarat High Court subsequently upheld their convictions in its judgment dated January 22, 2015.
The Supreme Court closely examined the complainant's evidence concerning the alleged demand of ₹120.
The Court noted a significant inconsistency in the complainant's testimony. In another criminal case filed against the accused shortly after the alleged incident, the complainant had stated that the Talati-cum-Mantri initially demanded ₹200, with ₹120 subsequently being agreed as a final settlement.
However, in the present case, the complainant did not mention the initial demand of ₹200 or the alleged settlement. The Court found this variation significant because the other case had been filed within a month of the alleged demand.
The Court also found the conduct surrounding the ₹20 payment suspicious.
The complainant had been instructed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau to hand over the entire ₹120 when the demand was made. However, he ultimately gave only ₹20 to the Peon. The complainant also admitted that the Peon had not demanded any money from him.
The Court observed that the Peon was standing only one or two feet away from the Talati-cum-Mantri and yet did not ask why he was being given only ₹20 when the alleged instruction was to pay ₹120. According to the Court, these circumstances raised serious doubt about whether the alleged demand of ₹120 had actually been made.
The Supreme Court made it clear that recovery of tainted money cannot, by itself, establish the offence when the foundational fact of demand has not been proved.
The Court held that the Section 20 presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act arises only after the prosecution proves the initial demand beyond reasonable doubt. If the demand itself remains unproved, recovery of ₹20 from the accused cannot revive an otherwise deficient prosecution case.
The Court also considered the fact that the ₹20 was handed over after the Income Certificate had already been prepared and delivered to the complainant. This circumstance further created doubt because the certificate for which the alleged bribe was demanded had already been issued.
The Court observed that payment after completion of the official work cannot automatically be treated as payment pursuant to an illegal demand.
The Court additionally examined the validity of the sanction granted for prosecution of the Talati-cum-Mantri.
It found that the sanction had been granted by a Deputy District Development Officer, whereas the District Development Officer was the competent authority to remove a Talati-cum-Mantri from office.
Under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, previous sanction must be granted by the authority competent to remove the public servant from office. The Court therefore held that the sanction granted by the Deputy District Development Officer was invalid.
However, the Supreme Court clarified that it was not setting aside the conviction solely on the ground of invalid sanction. It independently examined the evidence and concluded that the prosecution case itself fell substantially short of proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court ultimately held that once the alleged demand by the Talati-cum-Mantri was not proved and both the Trial Court and High Court had found that no demand was made by the Peon, the prosecution case could not succeed.
The Court observed that mere possession of the ₹20 currency note by the Peon was insufficient to uphold the convictions under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Court also found the defence version that the ₹20 was given to the Peon in view of the Eid festival falling the following day to be a probable explanation.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Trial Court judgment dated November 30, 1999, as affirmed by the Gujarat High Court on January 22, 2015, and acquitted both appellants. Their bail bonds were ordered to stand cancelled.
The judgment reinforces an important principle in corruption prosecutions:
Recovery of alleged bribe money, by itself, is not sufficient for conviction when the prosecution fails to establish the foundational fact of demand beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can arise only after such demand is proved.
Case Title: Rafikmiya Ahmedmiya Malek v. State of Gujarat
Citation: 2026 INSC 890
Representation:-
For Appellant(s): Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, AOR, Mr. Amit Sangwan Adv., Ms. Shivangi Singh Adv., Mr. Sudhansu Palo AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Prashant Bhagwati Adv., Ms. Swati Ghildiyal AOR, Ms. Neha Singh Adv., Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka AOR
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy