LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 19 August 2026

Does payment of money to a public servant, made only after the official act (such as issuance of a certificate) has already been completed, by itself establish that the payment was made pursuant to a demand for bribe?

RAFIKMIYA AHMEDMIYA MALEK v. STATE OF GUJARAT
2026 INSC 890 · CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1177 OF 2015
Coram: Ujjal Bhuyan; Atul S. Chandurkar
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. Where the amount was given after the Income Certificate for which the bribe was allegedly demanded had already been prepared and handed over to the complainant, it cannot, ipso facto, be assumed that such payment was pursuant to a demand made.

Headnote

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 19(1)(c), 20 — demand and acceptance of bribe — sanction for prosecution — presumption under Section 20 — prior proof of demand — Held: The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act of 1988 comes into play only after the initial demand is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of the amount, without proof of demand, does not resurrect the prosecution's case. (¶15) sanction under Section 19(1)(c) — authority competent to remove — Held further: Sanction for prosecution under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act of 1988 must be granted by the authority competent to remove the public servant from office, not merely the authority that appointed him; an invalid sanction, however, does not by itself require a conviction to be set aside. (¶17) payment after completion of official act — no automatic inference of demand — Held further: Where money is handed over only after the official act for which a bribe was allegedly demanded has already been completed, it cannot, ipso facto, be assumed that the payment was pursuant to a demand. (¶16) conviction set aside — appellants acquitted — Held further: Finding the prosecution's evidence insufficient to prove demand beyond reasonable doubt, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. (¶19)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 16Another relevant aspect that cannot be ignored is that the amount of ₹20/- was given by the complainant to A2 after receiving the Income Certificate from A[^1]. This is another relevant factor that requires consideration inasmuch as the Income Certificate for the issuance of which it was alleged that the bribe was demanded had already been prepared and was handed over to the complainant. When this circumstance is considered in totality of the prosecution material on record, it again raises a doubt as the Income Certificate was duly prepared and handed over to the complainant by A[^1], after which he gave the amount of ₹20/- to A2. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision in State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere (supra) wherein it was held that ipso facto, it cannot be assumed that such payment was pursuant to a demand made.
Acts & Sections
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Indian Penal Code, 1860

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of RAFIKMIYA AHMEDMIYA MALEK v. STATE OF GUJARAT — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Does the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 arise merely upon recovery of the bribe amount from an accused, even where the initial demand has not been proved?Under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, must previous sanction for prosecuting a public servant be granted by the authority that appointed him, or by the authority competent to remove him from office?Does an invalid order of sanction for prosecution, by itself, require a conviction to be set aside?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections