The Supreme Court docket on Wednesday (19.08.2026) has acquitted a former Talati-cum-Mantri and a Peon of a Gram Panchayat, who have been convicted underneath the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), holding that the prosecution has did not show the preliminary demand of bribe past cheap doubt. It was additionally noticed that mere restoration of a forex observe from the co-accused couldn’t maintain the conviction.
A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar put aside the Gujarat Excessive Court docket judgment, which upheld the conviction of the appellants underneath Sections 7, 12, and 13(1)(d) of the Act.
The complainant had approached the Mamlatdat to acquire an Revenue Certificates. The applying was examined and forwarded to the Talati-cum-Mantri of village Bechri (A1). It was alleged that A1 demanded Rs 120 (Rs 100 for himself and Rs 20 for the Peon, A2), for issuing the certificates. A criticism was filed earlier than the Anti-Corruption Bureau and a lure was laid. The complainant allegedly gave a Rs 20 observe to A2, who was caught with the contaminated forex.
Each the accused individuals have been convicted by the trial Court docket underneath Part 7 learn with Part 13(1)(d) of the Act, whereas being acquitted of felony conspiracy underneath Part 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Part 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), and have been sentenced to endure rigorous imprisonment for six months together with wonderful of Rs 2000. On enchantment, the Gujarat Excessive Court docket upheld the conviction, nevertheless, State’s plea for enhancement of sentence was dismissed, holding that there was no want to reinforce punishment because the accused had already been dismissed from service.
Whereas pursuing the proof, the Court docket famous that the complainant, in a separate case, deposed contradictory variations of the quantity allegedly requested for in bribe. Earlier, he deposed that A1 had initially demanded Rs 200, and that Rs 120 was arrived at “in the direction of closing settlement”, nevertheless, he didn’t state this within the current proceedings. The bench noticed that “the model of the complainant as recorded on this case, subsequently, is in variance together with his deposition” within the different case.
The bench additionally famous that the complainant had been particularly instructed by the Bureau handy over your entire quantity of Rs 120 (in three notes) at any time when the demand was made. Nevertheless, regardless of A1 allegedly demanding the total quantity after issuing the certificates, the complainant gave just one Rs 20 observe to A1. Notably, A2 who was standing close by, raised no question.
The Court docket held that this conduct, “thought-about alongside together with his admission within the cross-examination that A2 didn’t make any demand,” rendered your entire episode suspicious. It was additional famous that there was “no clarification as to why the directions given to the complainant on the Anti-Corruption Bureau workplace of giving your entire quantity of Rs 120 on demand weren’t adopted.”
The Court docket additionally famous that each the accused had been acquitted of the cost of felony conspiracy underneath Part 120B of IPC, which was important because the demand was attributed solely to A1 (who was by no means discovered with any cash) whereas acceptance was attributed solely to A2 (towards whom demand was held not proved).
Rejecting the prosecution’s reliance on the presumption underneath Part 20 of the Act, the bench held that such a presumption “would come into play solely after the preliminary demand is proved by the prosecution past cheap doubt,” and that “if the preliminary demand itself isn’t proved, mere restoration of the quantity of Rs 20 from A2 wouldn’t resurrect the case of the prosecution to allow the Court docket to carry that the cost was proved.” Counting on N Vijayakumar v State of Tamil Nadu, it was held that the Excessive Court docket erred in drawing the presumption merely on the premise that the accused have been public servants and the forex observe recovered from A2 was tainted.
The bench additional noticed that the Rs 20 observe was given to A2 solely after the Revenue Certificates had already been handed over to the complainant by A1, which added doubt surrounding the alleged demand.
The Court docket additionally examined the appellants’ rivalry that the sanction issued by the Deputy District Improvement Officer for prosecuting A1, was invalid as a result of solely the District Improvement Officer was empowered to take away a Talati-cum-Mantri underneath the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961. Noting that the prosecution had failed to ascertain {that a} Deputy District Improvement Officer was empowered to challenge sanction, the Court docket held that “the sanction granted to the prosecution of A1 by the Deputy District Improvement Officer is discovered to be invalid.” Nevertheless, it was additionally clarified that the Court docket would “not put aside the conviction of A1 solely on the bottom of an invalid order of sanction,” continuing as an alternative to carry that the prosecution’s proof independently fell “woefully in need of proving the cost towards each the accused past cheap doubt.”
Additional, the Court docket took observe of A2’s defence that he had been given Rs 20 by the complainant on account of Eid falling the subsequent day, holding the reason to be “additionally possible” within the details of the case.
Within the gentle of above, the bench held that “mere possession of a forex observe of Rs 20 with A2 by itself wouldn’t be enough to uphold the conviction of A1 and A2 for the offence punishable underneath Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) of the Act of 1988.”
Accordingly, the judgments of the trial Court docket and the Excessive Court docket have been put aside, and each the appellants have been acquitted of the costs.
Case Title: Rafikmiya Ahmedmiya Malek v State of Gujarat and Sirajbhai Rasulbhai Vora v State of Gujarat
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 830
For Appellant: Mr. Sudhansu Palo, AOR Mr. Amit Sangwan, Adv. Ms. Shivangi Singh, Adv. Mr. Vikram Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar Singh, Adv.
For Respondent:Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Ms. Neha Singh, Adv.
