Stamp Vendors as Public Servants Under the Prevention of Corruption Act: Supreme Court Clarifies Legal Position

 

By: Abhishek Jat, Advocate

Introduction

In a significant pronouncement, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the legal status of licensed stamp vendors, holding them to be "public servants" within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). This decision carries far-reaching implications for the regulation of stamp paper transactions and the accountability of individuals involved in such public functions.

Factual Background

The case arose from allegations that the appellant, a licensed stamp vendor in Delhi, demanded and accepted an excess amount of Rs. 2 over the face value of a Rs. 10 stamp paper. Following a complaint, the Anti-Corruption Branch conducted a trap operation, leading to the appellant's prosecution and subsequent conviction by the Trial Court under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The conviction was affirmed by the Delhi High Court, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Core Legal Issue

The pivotal legal question was whether a licensed stamp vendor, remunerated via a discount on stamp paper purchases from the government, qualifies as a "public servant" under Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act and is thereby amenable to prosecution for corrupt practices.

Analysis by the Supreme Court

Interpretation of "Public Servant"

The Supreme Court emphasized that the determination of "public servant" status hinges on the nature of the duty performed, rather than the manner of appointment or the precise form of remuneration. The Court referred to the legislative intent behind Section 2(c) of the PC Act, which is designed to encompass all individuals discharging public duties, especially those remunerated by the government, whether by salary, fee, or commission.

Remuneration and Public Duty

The Court examined the Delhi Province Stamp Rules, 1934, particularly Rules 28 and 34, which regulate the licensing and remuneration of stamp vendors. The discount received by vendors on the purchase of stamp papers from the government treasury was interpreted as a form of commission or fee for the performance of a public function. The Court noted that the vending of stamp papers is not a private commercial activity but a regulated public duty, integral to the administration of justice and public transactions.

Reference to Precedents

The judgment cited the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in State of Gujarat vs Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah (2019) 11 SCC 394, where it was held that entities performing public functions and remunerated by the government fall within the ambit of the PC Act. The Court also distinguished the present case from Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India (2002 SCC OnLine Guj 135) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association (2014) 16 SCC 114, clarifying that those cases dealt with income tax provisions and not the definition of "public servant" under the PC Act.

Determination of Guilt

While affirming that stamp vendors are public servants, the Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the allegation of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. Discrepancies in the evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of excess money led the Court to set aside the conviction, underscoring the necessity of strict proof in criminal trials.

Glossary of Key Terms

• Public Servant: As per Section 2(c) of the PC Act, includes any person remunerated by the government for performing a public duty.
• Remuneration: Payment received for services rendered, which may be in the form of salary, commission, or fee.
• Illegal Gratification: Any undue financial or other advantage sought or accepted by a public servant as a reward for performing or forbearing an official act.
• Trap Evidence: Evidence obtained through a planned operation to catch an accused in the act of accepting illegal gratification.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Aman Bhatia vs State (GNCT of Delhi) provides authoritative clarity on the status of stamp vendors under anti-corruption law. By recognizing the public character of their duties and the governmental nature of their remuneration, the Court has reinforced the accountability of all individuals entrusted with public functions. However, the judgment also reiterates the fundamental principle that criminal liability must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

Case Title: Aman Bhatia vs State (GNCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 520
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Date of Judgment: 2nd May 2025

References

1. Aman Bhatia vs State (GNCT of Delhi), 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 520
2. State of Gujarat vs Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah, (2019) 11 SCC 394
3. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India, 2002 SCC OnLine Guj 135
4. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association, (2014) 16 SCC 114

This article is authored by Abhishek Jat, Advocate. The views expressed are personal and for informational purposes only.