He Never Took a Rupee — Supreme Court Clears Him After 30 Years

Case: Rafikmiya Ahmedmiya Malek v. State of Gujarat (with connected appeal)
Court: Supreme Court of India | Judges: Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar
Decided: August 19, 2026 | Citation: 2026 INSC 890

A government official spent nearly 30 years fighting a bribery case — even though he never once touched a single rupee. The Supreme Court has now cleared both him and his peon, saying the case simply didn’t hold up.

Back in 1996, a student in Gujarat needed an income certificate to get fee concessions for his studies. He alleged the local Talati-cum-Mantri (a village revenue officer) demanded ₹120 for the certificate — ₹100 for himself, ₹20 for the office peon. Instead of paying, the student complained to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, which set up a trap. When he came to collect his certificate, he handed a marked ₹20 note to the peon, who pocketed it. Both men were convicted by the trial court and the Gujarat High Court upheld it in 2015. They finally reached the Supreme Court — and walked away acquitted.

Why the Case Fell Apart
The Court looked closely at the story and found it just didn’t hold together.

Here’s why:-
The man accused of demanding the bribe never got any money. Not one rupee was ever found on him or given to him directly. Only his peon received the ₹20 note.
The student didn’t do what he was told. The Anti-Corruption Bureau had clearly instructed him to hand over the full ₹120 if it was demanded. Instead, he gave only ₹20. And the peon — standing barely a couple of feet away when this happened — never once asked why he was handing over so much less than what was supposedly asked for. That’s a strange gap for the Court to ignore.
The certificate was already done and handed over — before any money changed hands. If the bribe was supposedly for getting the certificate made, why would money be paid after the student already had it in his hands?
The student’s own story kept changing. In an unrelated case he had filed earlier, he had said the official first demanded ₹200 and only later agreed to settle for ₹120. But when he testified in this bribery case, he left that detail out completely — telling a simpler, different version of events.

The conspiracy angle never held up either. Both men had also been charged with plotting together to demand the bribe. But even the trial court, at the very first hearing, had already thrown out that charge for lack of evidence — years before this final appeal.

Put together, none of these threads lined up cleanly. And since the very first requirement of a bribery case is proving that a bribe was actually demanded, the Court held that the prosecution simply never managed to establish that — so the conviction couldn’t stand.

Interesting facts in this judgment :-
• Thirty years. The case dragged from 1996 to 2026 before the two men were finally cleared.
• A bribe with no bribe-taker. The man accused of demanding money never got any of it.
• A festival gift, not a bribe? The defense argued the ₹20 was simply an Eid gift, since the festival fell the very next day.
• Even finger-counting mattered. Witnesses disagreed on something as small as how many fingers were used to pull the note from a pocket — and the Court noted the discrepancy.
• The paperwork to even prosecute was flawed. The government permission needed to put the official on trial had been signed by the wrong officer — though the Court said this alone wouldn’t have been enough to overturn the case.

---

For young lawyers: In corruption cases, always dig into every small inconsistency in the complainant’s story — from timelines to tiny details like how money was handed over — because proving the demand for a bribe, not just its recovery, is the real battleground. And never assume a statutory presumption (like Section 20 of the PC Act) will save a weak case; it only kicks in after demand is independently proven beyond reasonable doubt.