Stamp vendors qualify as public servants but conviction set aside for failure to prove demand and acceptance

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan heard an appeal by Aman Bhatia against the Delhi High Court’s affirmation of his conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The core questions were whether a licensed stamp vendor constituted a “public servant” under Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act and whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification in a trap operation.

The Supreme Court held that licensed stamp vendors fall within the ambit of “public servant” under Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act but allowed the appeal on merits, setting aside the conviction for failure to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasised a purposive construction of the definition of “public servant” and the primacy of the public duty test, observing that “the definition of ‘public servant’ as defined under the PC Act should be given a purposive and wide interpretation so as to advance the object underlying the statute.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 judgment further noted that “it is the nature of duty being discharged by a person which assumes paramount importance when determining whether such a person falls within the ambit of the definition of public servant.”

Background The prosecution case arose from a December 9, 2003 complaint that Aman Bhatia, a licensed stamp vendor at the Sub-Registrar, Janakpuri, demanded Rs. 12 for a Rs. 10 stamp paper. The Anti-Corruption Branch laid a trap; the complainant tendered phenolphthalein-smeared currency (Rs.10 and Rs.2) and the vendor was apprehended. A wash of the vendor’s hand purportedly turned pink and the notes were recovered from the vendor’s sale register. A Special Judge convicted Bhatia under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) and sentenced him to concurrent terms; the Delhi High Court affirmed, holding that vending stamps was a public duty and that discounts granted under the Delhi Province Stamp Rules, 1934 amounted to remuneration or commission.

Before the Supreme Court the State defended both conclusions. The Court analysed the legislative intent behind the PC Act, the text and purpose of Section 2(c)(i), and the 1934 Rules which provided for licensed vendors, their entitlement to discounts and the rule that “The remuneration to the vendor shall be in the form of discount allowed from time to time under the orders of the local Government.” The Court concluded that the discount mechanism constituted remuneration for a public duty — ensuring public access to judicial and non-judicial stamps — and therefore stamp vendors were public servants within the PC Act.

On the criminal merits, however, the Court scrutinised the evidence from the complainant, the panch witness, the raid officer and the investigating officer. It observed material inconsistencies and lacunae: the panch witness did not clearly corroborate a demand for Rs.12, the raid officer did not hear the demand, the investigating officer reached the spot after a delay and the seizure record timings were inconsistent. The Court reiterated settled law that, for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), the prosecution had to prove either an offer by the bribe-giver accepted by the public servant or a demand by the public servant accepted by the bribe-giver, and that mere recovery of tainted money or a positive wash test was not decisive in absence of proof of demand. Finding the prosecution had not established demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside conviction and sentence, and discharged bail bonds.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 618 Case Title: Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi) (Criminal Appeal No. 2613 of 2014) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S. K. Rungta, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General