Stamp Vendors Perform Vital Public Duty, Qualify as Public Servants: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on May 2, 2025 held 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 Act (PC Act).

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said 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.

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 as defined under the PC Act, the court underscored.

A person would be a public servant under Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act if he is in the service of the government; or in the pay of the government; remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty. All three categories are independent of each other. There may be cases where more than one of the categories are applicable and “or” may be read as “and”, the bench said.

"The legislature has used a comprehensive definition of “public servant” to achieve the purpose of punishing and curbing the growing menace of corruption. Keeping this intention of the legislature in mind, we are of the view 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 bench said.

The court here was dealing with an appeal filed by Aman Bhatia, a stamp vendor, against the Delhi High Court's judgment, which affirmed the order of 2013 by the Special Judge holding him guilty of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 respectively.

The appellant was allegedly caught in a trap laid by the Anti-Corruption Branch for demanding Rs 12 for a stamp paper worth Rs 10 in 2003.

The court looked into the core legal issue of whether the stamp vendors qualified as public servants. However, the bench acquitted the appellant due to failure of the prosecution to prove the demand beyond the reasonable doubt due to material inconsistencies in testimonies of the complainant and panch witness.

The bench emphasised that the proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act as mere recovery of money is not sufficient.

"Mere possession and recovery of tainted currency notes from a public servant, in the absence of proof of demand, is not sufficient to establish an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act respectively and without evidence of demand for illegal gratification, it cannot be said that the public servant used corrupt or illegal means, or abused his position, to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage," the court said.

The court noted the appellant was lawfully entitled to receive Rs 10 for the stamp paper, irrespective of any demand for bribe.

Stamp vendors, performing important public duty, undoubtedly public servants: SCSince, the Rs 10 note itself was tainted it becomes difficult to determine whether the change in the colour of the solution was triggered by the handling of the Rs 10 note or the Rs 2 note. Hence, the mere turning of the solution pink cannot, by itself, establish the acceptance of illegal gratification, it added.

It also relied upon a five-Judge bench judgment in Neeraj Dutta Vs State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2023), which categorically held that an offer by bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act. Mere acceptance of illegal gratification without proof of offer by bribe-giver and demand by the public servant would not make an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act.

With regard to the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act, the bench clarified that this arises once it is established that the public servant accepted the gratification.

However, in determining whether such acceptance occurred, the totality of the evidence led at the trial must be appreciated. The evidence led by the prosecution, the suggestions made by the defence witnesses, if any, the entire record is required to be considered. Only if the cumulative effect of all the evidence is such that the sole possible conclusion is that the public servant accepted the gratification can it be said that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt, the bench said.

"We are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt, the demand of bribe and its acceptance, in a trap laid by the ACB. In such circumstances, there is no question of a presumption under Section 20. Consequently, we find ourselves compelled to conclude that it would be entirely illegal to uphold the conviction of the appellant under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act," the bench said.

Case Title: Aman Bhatia Vs State (GNCT Of Delhi)

Download judgment here