Supreme Court of India· 19 August 2026

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?

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. 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; if the initial demand itself is not proved, mere recovery of the amount would not resurrect the case of the prosecution to enable the Court to hold that the charge was proved.

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 15It was sought to be urged on behalf of the prosecution that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act of 1988 would arise once it was proved that the bribe amount of ₹20/- was received by A2. This contention cannot be accepted for the reason that 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. If the initial demand itself is not proved, mere recovery of the amount of ₹20/- from A2 would not resurrect the case of the prosecution to enable the Court to hold that the charge was proved. This position is clear in view of the decision of the three Judge Bench in N. Vijayakumar (supra). The High Court in the impugned judgment has proceeded to draw presumption under Section 20 of the Act of 1988 on the premise that both the accused were public servants and that A2 was found in possession of the currency note smeared with anthracene powder. It is clear from the evidence brought on record by the prosecution that the demand by A[^1] itself is doubtful and, hence, not proved. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act of 1988, therefore, cannot be drawn in such a situation.

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

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 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?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