Stamp Vendors Are 'Public Servants' Under Prevention Of Corruption Act; Liable For Bribery Over Stamp Paper Sale : Supreme Court

In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court on Friday (May 2) held that stamp vendors fall within the definition of "public servants" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and hence, can be proceeded under the PC Act for the corrupt practices.

The Court held that it was the nature of the 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.

"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," held the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan.

The bench was deciding an appeal against a Delhi High Court's judgment, which affirmed the Trial Court's judgment holding the appellant herein guilty of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

The allegation was that the appellant, a stamp vendor, made an excess demand of Rs 2 for a stamp paper valued at Rs. 10. Based on a complaint filed by the purchaser, the Anti-Corruption Bureau initiated proceedings, on the basis of 'trap' evidence.

One of the main arguments raised by the appellant was that he was not covered under the PC Act, since he was a private vendor. The Court noted that a person will be a "public servant", if he is remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty. Reference was made to the judgment in State of Gujarat vs Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah which held that a deemed university will come under the ambit of PC Act.

Referring to the various provisions of the Stamp Act and the related rules, the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala noted that the discounted price at which the vendors procure the stamp papers from the government act as a remuneration. Also, the vending of stamp papers is a public duty.

"In the case at hand, the appellant was eligible for receiving discount on the purchase of stamp papers owing to the license that he was holding. Further, the discount is traceable to and is governed by the 1934 Rules framed by the State Government. Thus, the appellant, without a doubt, could be said to be “remunerated by the government” for the purposes of Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act."

"The purpose of securing stamp duty fortifies the motive behind the efforts of the Government to remunerate stamp vendors. Thus, the appellant, at the relevant time, was being remunerated by the Government. Undoubtedly, the appellant was discharging a duty in which both the State and thepublic have an interest, which, nonetheless, brings him within the ambit of a public servant as defined under the PC Act," the Court observed.

At the same time, on merits, the Court found that the prosecution has failed in establishing the allegation of demand for illegal gratification and acceptance thereof beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the conviction was set aside.

Senior Advocate S. K. Rungta appeared for the appellant; ASG Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the State.

Case : Aman Bhatia vs State (GNCT of Delhi)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 520

Click here to read the judgment