The Supreme Court has acquitted two Gujarat Panchayat employees in a nearly three-decade-old corruption case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged demand for a ₹120 bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar also found the prosecution sanction against one of the employees legally invalid. The Court set aside the concurrent findings of the trial court and Gujarat High Court. The judgment was delivered on August 19, 2026.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident in February 1996 involving an application for an Income Certificate. According to the prosecution, the Talati-cum-Mantri allegedly demanded ₹120 from the complainant, stating that ₹100 was meant for himself and ₹20 for the Panchayat peon.
The complainant later approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau, following which a trap was arranged. During the operation, the complainant handed over a ₹20 note to the peon after receiving the Income Certificate.
The trial court convicted both employees under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, while the Gujarat High Court upheld their conviction in January 2015. Both then approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court closely examined the complainant’s evidence and found inconsistencies concerning the alleged demand. In an earlier proceeding, the complainant had stated that ₹200 was initially demanded and that ₹120 was later settled. However, that version was not reflected in his testimony in the present case.
The Court also noted that although the complainant had been instructed to hand over the entire ₹120 when the demand was made, he gave only ₹20 to the peon. The peon himself had not made any demand for money.
The Bench observed:
“The prosecution evidence is insufficient to hold that demand of ₹120/- by A1 was proved beyond reasonable doubt.”
The Court further held that recovery of ₹20 alone could not establish the prosecution case when the initial demand itself had not been proved. It explained that the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act could arise only after the prosecution first established the demand beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court also considered the fact that the Income Certificate had already been prepared and handed over before the ₹20 was given to the peon. This circumstance, it said, further created doubt about whether the payment was pursuant to any demand.
The Supreme Court separately examined the prosecution sanction issued against the Talati-cum-Mantri. It found that the sanction had been granted by a Deputy District Development Officer, although the District Development Officer was the competent authority to remove a Talati-cum-Mantri from office.
The Court therefore held that the sanction was invalid. However, it clarified that it was not setting aside the conviction solely on that ground, as the evidence itself was insufficient to prove the charges.
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the alleged demand had not been proved against the Talati-cum-Mantri, while the courts had already found that no demand was made by the peon. Mere possession of the ₹20 note was held insufficient to sustain the convictions.
The Court accordingly set aside the trial court judgment and the Gujarat High Court judgment, acquitted both appellants of the charges under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, cancelled their bail bonds, and allowed both criminal appeals.
Case Details
Case Title: Rafikmiya Ahmedmiya Malek v. State of Gujarat; Sirajbhai Rasulbhai Vora v. State of Gujarat
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1177 of 2015 and 1183 of 2015
Judges: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Decision Date: August 19, 2026
 and Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) Constables-300x169.webp)
