Facts
The complainant sought an Income Certificate and alleged that A1 (Talati-cum-Mantri) demanded ₹120—₹100 for himself and ₹20 for A2 (Peon). During the trap, the complainant gave only ₹20 to A2 after receiving the certificate. A2 did not make any demand, and ₹100 was neither paid to nor recovered from A1. Both the trial Court and High Court convicted the appellants under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Issues Framed
- Whether the prosecution proved the alleged demand of ₹120 by A1 beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether recovery of ₹20 from A2 was sufficient to sustain the conviction or attract the statutory presumption under S.20 of the Act of 1988.
- Whether the sanction for prosecution of A1 was valid under S.19(1)(c) of the Act of 1988.
Court’s Reasoning
(a) Demand by A1:
The Court found material inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence regarding the amount demanded. His earlier deposition referred to a demand of ₹200, with ₹120 allegedly being the final settlement. Further, although instructed to hand over the entire ₹120 upon demand, he gave only ₹20 to A2. A2 made no demand and did not question why only ₹20 was given. These circumstances created serious doubt. The Court held that the prosecution evidence was “insufficient to hold that demand of ₹120/- by A1 was proved beyond reasonable doubt.”
(b) S.20 presumption:
The Court held that the presumption under S.20 arises only after the initial demand is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mere recovery of ₹20 from A2 could not revive an otherwise unproved prosecution case. The Court relied upon N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu.
(c) Payment after issuance of certificate:
The ₹20 was handed over to A2 after A1 had already prepared and handed over the Income Certificate. This circumstance further weakened the prosecution case and made the defence explanation—that the amount was given in connection with Eid—probable.
(d) Sanction:
The sanction granted by the Deputy District Development Officer for A1's prosecution was held invalid because the District Development Officer was the authority competent to remove a Talati-cum-Mantri. However, the Court expressly declined to set aside the conviction solely on this ground, as the prosecution case independently failed on merits.
Held
The prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe by A1, while demand by A2 was admittedly not proved. Mere possession of ₹20 by A2 was insufficient to sustain conviction. The appellants were therefore entitled to acquittal.
Conclusion
The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act of 1988 would come into play only after the initial demand is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
Relevant Para
18) Having found that the charge of demand of bribe amount has not been proved against A1 coupled with the fact that both the Courts have recorded a finding that no demand was made by A2, it is obvious that the case of the prosecution must fail. As noted above, mere possession of a currency note of ₹20/- with A2 by itself would not be sufficient to uphold the conviction of A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) of the Act of 1988. The defence raised by A2 that the festival of Eid was on the next day and, hence, the complainant gave ₹20/- to him after receiving the Income Certificate is also probable.
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 890
Decided on: 19 August 2026
Case Title: Rafikmiya Ahmedmiya Malek v. State of Gujarat with Sirajbhai Rasulbhai Vora v. State of Gujarat
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, J.; Atul S. Chandurkar, J.