Verdict

In the Supreme Court, Criminal Appellate
Criminal Appeal No. 2613 of 2014

AMAN BHATIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPELLANT
Versus
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESPONDENT

On 2nd May 2025 the Hon’ble Supreme Court, pronounced landmark Judgment while adjudicating on a case of corruption against a stamp vendor.

Facts and Background     

• In December 2003, an individual went to the office of Sub-Registrar of Janakpuri, Delhi, to purchase a stamp paper of value Rs.10/-. The Appellant (‘Aman’), who is a licensed stamp vendor there, demanded an amount of Rs.12/- for the Rs.10/- stamp paper. The individual left without buying the stamp paper and instead lodged a complaint with Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) of Delhi Police against the Aman, whom he deemed to be a public servant. 
• In order to catch Aman red handed, an anti corruption bureau (ACB) team accompanied the individual who now carried with him one Rs.10/- currency note and one Rs.2/- currency note smeared with Phenolphthalein powder.
• When the individual asked for Rs.10/- stamp paper, Aman again demanded Rs.12/-. This time, the individual made the payment and collected the stamp paper. 
• As soon as Aman collected both the currency notes, the ACB team, in the presence of a panch witness, apprehended him. The coated Rs.2/- currency note was recovered from Aman’s logbook and his fingers were washed with a solution that changed colour to confirm traces of the powder on them.
• On the basis of this investigative procedure, Aman was charged under Sections 7, 13 (1)(d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 [‘PCA’] and presented him before a special ACB court judge who pronounced him guilty. Aman was sentenced to 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) + Rs.1,000 fine under Section 7 and 1 year RI + Rs.1,000 fine under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2), both sentences to be carried out concurrently.
• Aman appealed to the Delhi High Court for revoking the sentence given by ACB Special Court. however, the Delhi HC rejected the appeal.
• Aggrieved, Aman approached Supreme Court for revocation of sentence and acquittal from all charges.

Issues involved in the case

1. Whether a vendor of court stamp papers is a ‘public servant’ for purpose of his prosecution under the Act?
2. What constitutes an offence of corruption under the Act? How can the offence be established in court? 

Analysis & Judgment
In the process of adjudicating and arriving at its verdict in this case, Supreme Court has referred to verdicts of several High Courts besides its own verdicts, as mentioned below:   

• Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v/s Union of India, reported in 2002 SCC Online Guj 135
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad & Others v/s Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association, reported in (2014) 16 SCC 114
• State of Gujarat v/s Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah, reported in (2020) 20 SCC 360
• State of Madhya Pradesh v/s Ram Singh, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 88
• Roorkee Stamp Vendor Association v/s State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2013 SCC Online Utt 3764
• Kerala State Stamp Vendors Association v/s Office of the Accountant-General, reported in 2005 SCC Online Ker 672
• M. Karunanidhi v/s Union of India, reported in (1979) 3 SCC 431
• G. Krishnegowda v/s State of Karnataka, reported in 2021 SCC Online Kat 15332
• C.K. Damodaran Nair v/s Govt. of India, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 477
• Neeraj Dutta v/s State (Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731
• P. Satyanarayana Murthy v/s State of A.P., reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152
• Vedivelu Thevar v/s State of Madras, 1957 SCC Online SC 13
• State of Madhya Pradesh v/s Balveer Singh, 2025 SCC Online SC 390

Who is a ‘public servant’ under Section 2 (c ) of PC Act 1988? 

1. The original PC Act of 1947 was replaced by the new PC Act of 1988 for the objectives of (i) widening the scope of its provisions (ii) enhancing penalties for offenses being committed in varying forms and methods.
2. As part of these objectives, the definition of ‘public servant’ was also expanded to now include not only persons directly employed or on the payroll a government department or authority, but also any person:
   i) who receives a remuneration by way of fees or commission from a government or local authority or corporation or cooperative society established by government, for performing a ‘public duty’.
   ii) ‘public duty’ is any duty in discharge of which State, public or community at large has an interest.
   iii) Nature of the duty being performed, not the manner of appointment or the position held by the person or the mode of his remuneration, is what determines whether a person is a ‘public servant’.
3. Indian Stamp Act of 1899 is a fiscal enactment with the primary objective of generating revenue for the government by way of levying stamp duties on certain instruments of transaction between the public and government. To achieve this objective, government must ensure sufficient availability of stamp papers to the public through licensed stamp vendors. These stamp vendors must be remunerated and incentivised to perform this ‘public duty’ of securing revenue for the government.
4. The discount on the stamp paper’s face value, as fixed by government, is in itself the remuneration received by the stamp vendor from the government, thus bringing him under the definition of a ‘public servant’.

   With regard to this case, the SC noted that at the time Aman was (i) performing a ‘public duty’ which is in the interest of both government and public (ii) receiving remuneration from government by way of a discount on the stamp paper face value, which is equivalent to a fee or commission. As such, SC concluded that Appellant is indeed a ‘public servant’ under PC Act. 

   Has the offence of corruption been established beyond doubt under PC Act 1988?

5. Section 7 of PC Act 1988 stipulates that a public servant is punishable by a sentence of 3 to 7 years and also a fine, if he has committed any of the following offences:
   i) Accepts or attempts to accept from a person any undue advantage or reward for not performing or improperly performing his public duty, either by himself or by another public servant.
   ii) Performs or induces another public servant to perform a public duty improperly or dishonestly, in anticipation or as a consequence of accepting an undue advantage or reward from any person.
6. The demand for a bribe is sine qua non i.e. an essential pre-requisite condition for establishing an offence under Section 7 of PC Act. An offer must be made by bribe-giver and it must be accepted by bribe-taker, in order to establish the offence.
7. Sections 13 (1)(b) and 13 (2) of PC Act 1988 stipulates that a public servant will be guilty of criminal misconduct and punishable by a sentence of 1 to 7 years and also a fine, if he has committed any of the following offences:
   i) Intentionally enriches himself by illicit means, during the period of his office in public duty.
   ii) Possesses monetary resources or property that are disproportionate to his lawful sources of income, either himself or through any person on his behalf, anytime during his period of office.
8. To sustain a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe. Mere recovery of tainted money or mere acceptance of the money by the public servant, by itself, is insufficient to establish the charges against an accused under the PC Act. 

In the present case, the following facts were established in court after examination and cross-examination of the Investigating Officer (IO), Raid Officer, the panch witness of ACB and the complainant (individual):

i) There was a gap of 3 hours (4.15 pm to 7.15 pm) between the time of the arrest of Aman and the time when the investigating officer (IO) arrived at the premises for collecting the tainted money and other seizure documents.  

ii) The panch witness did not actually hear a demand made by Aman for the extra Rs.2/-. He also did not recollect having informed the raid officer about Aman’s demand. As such, there is no presumption of undue advantage that is provided in Section 20 of the PC Act. 

iii) Both the currency notes were smeared with chemical and handed over to Aman. It hence could not be proved that the colour change after washing Aman’s fingers was from the Rs.2/- note only.

iv) Prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt the demand for a bribe and its acceptance by Aman, both of which are pre-requisite conditions for conviction.  

Based on the above analysis, the Supreme Court set aside Aman’s conviction under Sections 7, 13 (1) (b & d) and 13 (2) of the Act. 

However, the Supreme Court judgement also clearly established that 

1. Interpretation of provisions/laws pertaining to ‘corruption in public life’ should be wide, liberal and consonant with the stated objectives of the legislation.
2. Conviction of offenders should be based on strict, unambiguous and irrefutable facts of evidence.

For full text of the judgment:
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2014/31395/31395_2014_13_1501_61408_Judgement_02-May-2025.pdf