The Supreme Court has acquitted a former village Talati-cum-Mantri and a peon in a bribery case that has dragged on for three decades, ruling that prosecutors failed to prove the initial demand for a bribe. The judgment, delivered by a Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar, sets aside convictions recorded by a trial court in 1999 and affirmed by the Gujarat High Court in 2015.
The case stems from a 1996 incident in which the complainant alleged the two public servants demanded money to issue an income certificate. The Court held that the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be drawn unless the demand itself is proved beyond reasonable doubt, and that recovery of the money alone cannot sustain a conviction.
A presumption that never should have been applied
Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act allows a court to presume that gratification accepted by a public servant was a bribe. But the Court reiterated that this presumption is not a substitute for proof of demand. Drawing on the three-judge Bench decision in N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court held that the presumption only comes into play after the demand is independently established.
Related: Delhi High Court Criticises ED Quashes PMLA Case
The High Court had erred, the Supreme Court found, by drawing the presumption merely because the accused were public servants and because the peon was found in possession of a currency note smeared with anthracene powder. That reasoning, the Court said, effectively reversed the burden of proof in a way the statute does not permit.
For corruption prosecutions, this principle carries real weight. A successful trap or recovery operation cannot fill the gap left by an unproven demand, and the judgment makes clear that the foundational fact must stand on its own.
Doubtful testimony and a shifting story
The complainant had alleged that the Talati-cum-Mantri demanded ₹120 for issuing the certificate — ₹100 for himself and ₹20 for the peon. The Court found the proof of that demand riddled with problems.
In a separate case filed within a month of the incident, the complainant had deposed that the initial demand was ₹200, settled finally at ₹120. He did not repeat that version in the present trial, creating what the Court called a material variance on the very amount alleged. There was also a discrepancy between the complainant and the panch witness over how the note was taken out and handed over.
Related: Bankruptcy trends reshaping business law
More tellingly, although the Anti-Corruption Bureau had instructed the complainant to hand over the entire ₹120 whenever the demand was made, he gave only ₹20 to the peon. The peon, standing a foot or two away, did not question why only ₹20 was being paid when he had supposedly been told ₹120. That conduct, the Court held, raised serious suspicion about whether the ₹120 demand was made at all.
The position of the peon was even weaker. Both lower courts had found no demand was proved against him — the case being only that the complainant thrust the ₹20 note into his pocket. The peon’s defence, that the festival of Eid fell the next day and the complainant had simply given him ₹20 after receiving his certificate, was probable.
An invalid sanction, and a verdict on the merits
The Court also addressed a challenge to the validity of the sanction to prosecute the Talati-cum-Mantri. Under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act, cognizance of an offence requires the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove the public servant from office. Here, the sanction had been granted by the Deputy District Development Officer, whereas the District Development Officer alone was competent to remove the accused under the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961.
Related: California Court Rules for OppFi in Lending Case
The Court found the sanction invalid on that footing. Notably, however, it declined to rest the acquittal on the sanction defect alone, holding that even leaving that aside, the prosecution’s evidence “falls woefully short” of proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
The money, significantly, was handed over after the income certificate had been prepared and given to the complainant. Relying on the principle in State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere v. C.B. Nagaraj, the Court observed that it cannot be assumed, merely from a payment, that the payment was pursuant to a demand — particularly where the work for which the bribe was allegedly sought had already been completed.
The Court set aside the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, acquitted both appellants of the offences under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, and cancelled their bail bonds. The case is Rafikmiya Ahmedmiya Malek v. State of Gujarat, with Sirajbhai Rasulbhai Vora v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1177 and 1183 of 2015, decided on August 19, 2026.
Leave a Reply