Supreme Court: Bribe recovery alone insufficient for PC Act conviction

This case involves two public servants, Rafikmiya Ahmedmiya Malek and Sirajbhai Rasulbhai Vora, who appealed against their convictions for demanding and accepting a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The core issue is whether the recovery of a bribe amount alone is sufficient for conviction without proof of a specific demand, and whether the prosecution was validly sanctioned.

Petitioners: Rafikmiya Ahmedmiya Malek and Sirajbhai Rasulbhai Vora; Respondent: State of Gujarat; Bench: Justice Atul S. Chandurkar.

• The Court is reviewing the conviction of the appellants for offences under Sections 7, 12, and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
• The Court is examining the validity of the sanction order granted by the Deputy District Development Officer for the prosecution of the Talati-cum-Mantri.
• The Court is assessing whether the demand for a bribe was proved against the appellants, specifically noting that the trial court found demand proved against A1 but not A2.
• The Court is evaluating the applicability of the presumption under Section 20 of the Act in the absence of a proved demand.

Written from the document by AI, and checked against it. The original below is authoritative.

The original document