The Supreme Court recently held that stamp vendors fall within the definition of "public servants" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and can be prosecuted for corruption-related offences. The ruling came in an appeal against a conviction under the PC Act, where the Court emphasised that it is the nature of the public duty performed, especially when remunerated by the State, that determines coverage under the Act. Notably, the Court observed that “stamp vendors across the country… are undoubtedly public servants within the ambit of Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act".
The matter arose from an appeal challenging a judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had affirmed the conviction of a stamp vendor by the Trial Court under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accusation against the appellant was that he had demanded and accepted an excess amount of Rs. 2 over the face value of a Rs. 10 stamp paper. The Anti-Corruption Bureau initiated proceedings following a complaint from the buyer, relying on evidence obtained through a trap operation.
The primary contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that he could not be brought within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act, since he was merely a private stamp vendor and not a public servant. It was argued that, being a licensee, the vendor did not hold any public office or receive direct salary or emoluments from the government, and hence, the conviction was unsustainable under the PC Act.
Rejecting the appellant's plea, the Supreme Court clarified that the determinative factor is not the employment status but the public nature of the duty discharged and whether such duty is remunerated by the State. Referring to Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act, the Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan held, “Stamp vendors across the country, by virtue of performing an important public duty and receiving remuneration from the Government for the discharge of such duty, are undoubtedly public servants within the ambit of Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act.”
The Court drew upon the precedent set in State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah, where it was held that deemed universities fall within the ambit of the PC Act due to their public character and partial funding by the State.
It was further observed that under the applicable Stamp Rules of 1934, licensed vendors purchase stamp papers at a discounted rate, and this margin functions as a form of government-sanctioned remuneration. Justice Pardiwala, writing the judgment, noted, “In the case at hand, the appellant was eligible for receiving discount on the purchase of stamp papers owing to the license that he was holding. Further, the discount is traceable to and is governed by the 1934 Rules framed by the State Government. Thus, the appellant, without a doubt, could be said to be ‘remunerated by the government’ for the purposes of Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act.”
The Court further emphasised the statutory purpose behind the licensing and discount framework, “The purpose of securing stamp duty fortifies the motive behind the efforts of the Government to remunerate stamp vendors. Thus, the appellant, at the relevant time, was being remunerated by the Government. Undoubtedly, the appellant was discharging a duty in which both the State and the public have an interest…”
Although the Court upheld the applicability of the PC Act to licensed stamp vendors, it ultimately allowed the appeal on the merits of the case. Upon examining the evidence, the Bench found that the prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appellant’s conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act was set aside, and he was acquitted of all charges.
Case Title: Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi)
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2613 of 2014
Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. S.K. Rungta (Sr. Adv.), Abhishek Garg, Prashant Singh, Pratiti Rungta, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal (AOR)
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Aishwarya Bhati (A.S.G.), Mukesh Kumar Maroria (AOR), Chitrangda Rashtaravara, Shagun Thakur, Aaditya Shankar Dixit, Satvika Thakur, Ishaan Sharma
Picture Source :
