Supreme Court: Bribe recovery alone insufficient for PC Act conviction

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.

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

What the court decided

• 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.

Also in the document

• The judgment is marked as 'REPORTABLE'.
• The trial court and High Court had previously upheld the convictions and dismissed the State's appeal for enhanced sentencing.
• The appellants argue that the sanction was invalid because the Deputy District Development Officer was not the competent authority to appoint a Talati-cum-Mantri.