THROUGH the judgement of the case – Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi) delivered on May 2, 2025, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan have, at the Supreme Court, declared that 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 Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act. In the case at hand, the appellant was eligible for receiving discount on the purchase of stamp papers owing to the license 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 appeal in this case, arose from the impugned judgement and order passed by the Delhi High Court by which the HC dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and thereby affirmed the order and judgement by the Special Judge on January 30, 2013, holding the appellant herein guilty of the offence under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the PC Act. The Trial Court held the appellant stamp vendor guilty of the offences with which he was charged and sentenced him to undergo RI for six months and fine of Rs 1000/- for the offence punishable under section 7 of the PC Act and RI for one year and fine of Rs 1000/- for the offence under section 13(1) (d) read with section 13(2) of the PC Act. The HC answered the question before it, in affirmative, holding that ensuring access to stamp papers, which are indispensable for legal transactions falls within the scope of ‘performance of a public duty’. The said public duty –vending of the stamps, is a licensed activity regulated under the statutes governing the sale of judicial and non-judicial stamp papers.

 

The HC further held that the fact that stamp vendors purchase these papers at a discounted rate before selling them to the public does not diminish the public nature of duty they perform. The HC added that in terms of Explanation 1 to section 2 of the PC Act, it is not necessary for the stamp vendor to be ‘appointed’ by the Government in order to be a public servant. The HC also pointed out from the Rule 28 of the Delhi Province Stamp Rules stipulates the conditions governing the grant of license to a stamp vendor and violation of the said Rule would amount to an illegal Act. Further Rule 28(xx) states that the remuneration to the vendor in the form of a discount is allowed from time to time by the orders of the local Government.The HC further, took note of Rule 34 which provides for remuneration to stamp vendors by entitling the licensed vendor of stamps to discount on the amount of purchase. From the reading of Rule 34(ii) and 34 (iii) of the 1934 Rules, the SC had reached the conclusion that what is paid as commission to the stamp vendors is a discount at the given rate on the stamps purchased and the same is treated as a commission. Presumption under section 20 of the PC Act is drawn only qua the offence under sections 7 and 11 respectively and not qua the offence under section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

 

The presumption is contingent upon the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification to the effect that the gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated under section 7 of the PC Act. Such proof of acceptance can follow only when the demand is proved. In that case, the prosecution evidence alone cannot be considered for the purpose of coming to the conclusion. The evidence led by the prosecution and the suggestions made by the defence witnesses, if any, are also required to be considered. It is then to be seen as to whether the total effect of the entire evidence led before the court is of a nature by which the only conclusion possible was that the public servant accepted the amount. If the answer is in affirmative, then alone it can be held that the prosecution established the case beyond reasonable doubt. Undoubtedly, the presumption under Section 20 arises once it is established that the public servant accepted the gratification. Onexamination of the entire evidence, the SC is of the opinionthat the prosecution has failed toestablish beyond all reasonabledoubt, the demand of bribe andits acceptance in a trap laid by theACB, hence there is no questionof presumption under section 20.The legislature has used a comprehensive definition of “publicservant” to achieve the purposeof punishing and curbing of growing menace of corruption.Keeping this intention of legislature in mind, the SC is of the viewthat the definition of “public servant” as defined under the PC Actshould be given a purposive andwide interpretation so as toadvance the object underlying thestatute. It is a nature of duty beingdischarged by a person whichassumes paramount importancewhen determining whether sucha person falls within the ambit ofthe definition of public servant asdefined under the PC Act. The prosecution has failed inestablishing the allegation ofdemand for illegal gratificationand acceptance thereof beyondreasonable doubt. Therefore, theconviction of the appellant for theoffences under sections 7 and13(1)(d) read with section 13(2)of the PC Act cannot be sustainedand is, thus, liable to be set aside.In the result, the appellant hasbeen successful, as the SupremeCourt has allowed his appeal. TheCourt has set aside the convictionand sentence of the accused asawarded by the Trial Court andaffirmed by the Delhi High Court.