Stamp vendors are public servants under Prevention of Corruption Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that the stamp vendors are public servants as defined under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act since they perform an essential function for the State [Aman Bhatia vs NCT of Delhi].The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan said that the definition of 'public servant' under the PC Act should be given a purposive and wide interpretation to advance the object underlying the statute."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 Court said 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.It explained that the definition of 'public servant' under Section 2(c)(i) includes three types of people - a person who is in the government service, a person who is paid by the government and a person who is remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty.The Court went on to hold that 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..Looking at the nature of work performed by stamp vendors, the Court examined Delhi Province Stamp Rules, 1934, and considered whether the discount received by them is a remuneration in terms of the expression “remunerated by the Government by fees or commission for the performance of any duty" under Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act.It found that a licensed vendor obtains stamps from the treasury at a discount and the Rules empower him to procure the stamps without any wait or delay. The discount is the vendor’s remuneration and operates as a commercial incentive, the Court said.Looking at the importance of securing revenue for the State through the imposition of stamp duties on certain instruments, the Court concluded that the stamp vendors perform an essential public duty on behalf of the State."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.".The Court was dealing with an appeal challenging a Delhi High Court decision to uphold conviction of a stamp vendor in a corruption case dating back to 2003. The licensed vendor had allegedly been caught receiving ₹12 for a stamp paper of ₹10. In 2013, the accused Aman Bhatia was convicted and sentenced to a rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The High Court later dismissed Bhatia's appeal. It also had held that a stamp vendor is a public servant for the purposes of the PC Act..In the appeal, the top court said 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.The Court then looked at the evidence against him and found that the prosecution had not been able to prove that there was a demand for bribe from the accused."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..Thus, the Court accepted the appeal and set aside Bhatia's 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..Senior Advocate SK Rungta along with Advocate on Record Rameshwar Prasad Goyal appeared for appellants. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the state NCT .[Read Judgment]