The judges noted that anyone who is paid or gets any commission from the Government to carry out a public duty is a public servant.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has ruled that licensed stamp vendors are considered “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). This decision came while hearing an appeal filed by a stamp vendor who was convicted in a corruption case from 2003.
ALSO READ: ‘A Fair Investigation is the Pillar of Justice’: Madras HC’s Stand on Money Laundering
However, the Court ultimately acquitted him, stating that the prosecution could not prove the most crucial element — a demand for bribe.
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed that the definition of a public servant must be understood broadly to fulfil the purpose of the PC Act.
“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 ruled.
The judges noted that anyone who is paid or gets any commission from the Government to carry out a public duty is a public servant.
“The definition of ‘public servant’ under the PC Act should be given a purposive and wide interpretation to advance the object underlying the statute.”
“Any person remunerated by the State for the performance of any public duty or who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorized or required to perform any public duty is a ‘public servant’ within the meaning of the definition under Section 2(c) of the PC Act.”
The Court explained that under Section 2(c)(i), there are three categories of public servants:
- People working directly for the government.
- People paid by the government.
- People who receive fees or commission from the government for doing a public job.
“The nature of duty is the determining factor in deciding whether a person qualifies to be a public servant and not the manner of appointment or mode of remuneration.”
To assess whether stamp vendors qualify under this definition, the Court reviewed the Delhi Province Stamp Rules, 1934. These rules allow licensed stamp vendors to buy stamp papers from the treasury at a discounted price — this discount serves as their income.
“The discount is the vendor’s remuneration and operates as a commercial incentive,” the Court said.
It also pointed out that stamp duties are an important source of income for the government. Therefore, selling stamp papers is not just a business, but a public duty.
“The Government remunerates a stamp vendor as he is facilitating the accessibility of stamps on behalf of the Government, and thus the role being performed by licensed stamp vendor is nothing short of a highly important public duty, essential for ensuring the efficient collection of revenue on behalf of the State.”
Background:
The case dealt with an appeal by Aman Bhatia, a licensed stamp vendor in Delhi, who was convicted for corruption in 2013. He was accused of accepting Rs. 12 for a Rs.10 stamp paper. He was sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment, and the Delhi High Court upheld his conviction, also holding that a stamp vendor is a public servant under the PC Act.
Bhatia then approached the Supreme Court. While agreeing with the High Court on the public servant status of stamp vendors, the top court examined the evidence of bribery.
“Since Bhatia was discharging a duty in which both the State and the public have an interest, he meets the definition of public servant as defined under the PC Act.”
However, the Court found that there was no proof that Bhatia had demanded or accepted a bribe knowingly.
“It is well-settled that mere recovery of tainted money, by itself, is insufficient to establish the charges against an accused under the PC Act. To sustain a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act respectively, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe. The courts have consistently reiterated that the demand for a bribe is sine qua non for establishing an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act,” the Court said.
As the prosecution failed to prove that Bhatia demanded or accepted illegal gratification, the Court set aside his conviction.
“The prosecution has failed in establishing the allegation of demand for illegal gratification and acceptance thereof beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act cannot be sustained and is, thus, liable to be set aside,” it said.
Case Name : Aman Bhatia vs State (GNCT of Delhi)
View Order
