# Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi)

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 618
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-05-02
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2613 of 2014
- **Bench:** J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/aman-bhatia-v-state-gnct-of-delhi-38950
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

Issue arose whether the High Court was right in holding that a
licensed stamp vendor falls within the ambit of a public servant for
the purposes of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and whether
the conviction of the appellant-licensed stamp vendor for offences
punishable u/ss.7, 13(1)d, 13(2) of the 1988 Act was sustainable.
Headnotes†
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.2(c) - Public servant -
Stamp vendors, if public servants - Appellant-licensed
stamp vendor, apprehended for selling Rs.10/- stamp paper
at Rs.12/- - Trial court held the appellant guilty for offences
punishable u/ss.7, 13(1)d, 13(2) - High Court holding that the
stamp vendor is a public servant for the purpose of PC Act,
upheld the conviction - Sustainability:
Held: Not sustainable - 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 public servants within the ambit of s.2(c)(i) - Appellantlicensed stamp vendor was eligible for receiving discount on
the purchase of stamp papers owing to the license that he
was holding - Discount is traceable to and is governed by
the 1934 Rules framed by the State Government - Thus, the
appellant could be said to be "remunerated by the government"
for the purposes of s.2(c)(i) - Appellant was discharging a
duty in which both the State and the public have an interest,
thus, falls within the ambit of a public servant - However, the
prosecution failed in establishing the allegation of demand
for illegal gratification and acceptance thereof in a trap laid
beyond reasonable doubt, thus presumption u/s.20 does not
arise - Conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences
* Author
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
65
Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi)
u/s.7 and 13(1)(d) rw s.13(2) cannot be sustained, and thus,
set aside - Delhi Province Stamp Rules, 1934. [Paras 52, 55,
56-58, 63, 64, 67, 69]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.2(c) - "Public servant" -
Definition of - Legislative intent of the statute:
Held: Legislature has used a comprehensive definition of "public
servant" to achieve the purpose of punishing and curbing growing
menace of corruption in government and semi-government
departments - Definition of "public servant" should be given a wide
and purposive construction so as to advance the object underlying
the statute - In construing the definition of "public servant" the
Court is required to adopt a purposive approach as would give
effect to the intention of the legislature. [Paras 12, 68.1]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.2(c)(i) - Public
servant - Stamp vendors, if public servants - Interpretation
of 'Remuneration' - Meaning of 'Commission':
Held: For the stamp vendor to be a public servant u/s.2(c)(i), two
conditions to be fulfilled are that he is to be remunerated by the
Government through fees or commission, and such remuneration
is for the performance or discharge of a public duty - In terms of
the 1934 Rules, when a licensed vendor procures stamps from the
treasury at a discounted rate which is lower than their face value,
and subsequently sells them to purchasers at their face value,
the difference between the two amounts constitutes the vendor's
remuneration - Discount serves as a form of remuneration and
operates as a commercial incentive, enabling the vendor not only
to recoup the purchase amount but also to earn a commission
in the nature of the differential amount between the procurement
cost and the face value, hence, the discount is the only form of
commission - 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 - Term
"commission" as used and understood in the context of s.194H
of the 1961 Act is not stricto sensu similar to its u

## Text

_Characters 0–39,874 of 79,504. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39874 for what follows._

[2025] 6 S.C.R. 64 : 2025 INSC 618
Aman Bhatia
v.
State (GNCT of Delhi)
(Criminal Appeal No. 2613 of 2014)
02 May 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the High Court was right in holding that a
licensed stamp vendor falls within the ambit of a public servant for
the purposes of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and whether
the conviction of the appellant-licensed stamp vendor for offences
punishable u/ss.7, 13(1)d, 13(2) of the 1988 Act was sustainable.
Headnotes†
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.2(c) - Public servant -
Stamp vendors, if public servants - Appellant-licensed
stamp vendor, apprehended for selling Rs.10/- stamp paper
at Rs.12/- - Trial court held the appellant guilty for offences
punishable u/ss.7, 13(1)d, 13(2) - High Court holding that the
stamp vendor is a public servant for the purpose of PC Act,
upheld the conviction - Sustainability:
Held: Not sustainable - 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 public servants within the ambit of s.2(c)(i) - Appellantlicensed stamp vendor was eligible for receiving discount on
the purchase of stamp papers owing to the license that he
was holding - Discount is traceable to and is governed by
the 1934 Rules framed by the State Government - Thus, the
appellant could be said to be "remunerated by the government"
for the purposes of s.2(c)(i) - Appellant was discharging a
duty in which both the State and the public have an interest,
thus, falls within the ambit of a public servant - However, the
prosecution failed in establishing the allegation of demand
for illegal gratification and acceptance thereof in a trap laid
beyond reasonable doubt, thus presumption u/s.20 does not
arise - Conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences
* Author
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
65
Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi)
u/s.7 and 13(1)(d) rw s.13(2) cannot be sustained, and thus,
set aside - Delhi Province Stamp Rules, 1934. [Paras 52, 55,
56-58, 63, 64, 67, 69]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.2(c) - "Public servant" -
Definition of - Legislative intent of the statute:
Held: Legislature has used a comprehensive definition of "public
servant" to achieve the purpose of punishing and curbing growing
menace of corruption in government and semi-government
departments - Definition of "public servant" should be given a wide
and purposive construction so as to advance the object underlying
the statute - In construing the definition of "public servant" the
Court is required to adopt a purposive approach as would give
effect to the intention of the legislature. [Paras 12, 68.1]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.2(c)(i) - Public
servant - Stamp vendors, if public servants - Interpretation
of 'Remuneration' - Meaning of 'Commission':
Held: For the stamp vendor to be a public servant u/s.2(c)(i), two
conditions to be fulfilled are that he is to be remunerated by the
Government through fees or commission, and such remuneration
is for the performance or discharge of a public duty - In terms of
the 1934 Rules, when a licensed vendor procures stamps from the
treasury at a discounted rate which is lower than their face value,
and subsequently sells them to purchasers at their face value,
the difference between the two amounts constitutes the vendor's
remuneration - Discount serves as a form of remuneration and
operates as a commercial incentive, enabling the vendor not only
to recoup the purchase amount but also to earn a commission
in the nature of the differential amount between the procurement
cost and the face value, hence, the discount is the only form of
commission - 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 - Term
"commission" as used and understood in the context of s.194H
of the 1961 Act is not stricto sensu similar to its usage in s.2(c)
(i) - Terms "fees or commission" must be construed so as to
give full effect to the definition and the other provisions of the
statute - Structure of the definition reduces the emphasis on the
66
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
strictness of the relationship between the Government and the
public servant, while placing greater focus on the performance of
a public duty - Delhi Province Stamp Rules, 1934 - Income Tax
Act, 1961 - s.194H. [Paras 19, 26, 28, 33, 41, 42]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.2(c) - "Public servant" -
Determination of status of public servant - Public duty as
the determinant:
Held: It is the nature of duty being discharged by a person which
assumes paramount importance when determining whether such
person falls within the ambit of the definition of public servant
as defined under the PC Act - Primary test of qualification
for inclusion in the definition of "public servant" is whether the
concerned person is performing any public duty - Once the nature
of performance of duties gets crystallized, any person remunerated
by the Government 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 term defined u/s.2(c). [Paras 45, 46, 68.2]
Interpretation of statutes - Rule of interpretation:
Held: Every interpretation of statute must be undertaken by
considering the statute in its entirety, the prior state of the law,
other statutes in pari materia, the general scope and purpose
of the legislation, and the mischief that the legislature intended
to address - It is essential not only to consider the words used
but also to examine the statement of objects and reasons.
[Paras 43, 44]
Case Law Cited
Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad & Ors. v. Ahmedabad
Stamp Vendors Association (2014) 16 SCC 114; State of Gujarat v.
Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah [2020] 9 SCR 330 : (2020) 20 SCC
360; State of M.P. v. Ram Singh [2000] 1 SCR 579 : (2000) 5 SCC
88; M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India [1979] 3 SCR 254 : (1979) 3
SCC 431; C.K. Damodaran Nair v. Govt. of India [1997] 1 SCR 107
: (1997) 9 SCC 477; Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of
Delhi) [2023] 2 SCR : 997 (2023) 4 SCC 731; P. Satyanarayana
Murthy v. State of A.P. (2015) 10 SCC 152; Vedivelu Thevar v.
State of Madras, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 13; State of Madhya
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
67
Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi)
Pradesh v. Balveer Singh [2025] 2 SCR 836 : 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 390 - referred to.
Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India, 2002
SCC OnLine Guj 135; Roorkee Stamp Vendor Association v. State
of Uttarakhand, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 3764; Kerala State Stamp
Vendors Association v. Office of the Accountant-General, 2005
SCC OnLine Ker 672; G. Krishnegowda v. State of Karnataka,
2021 SCC OnLine Kat 15332 - referred to.
List of Acts
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Delhi Province Stamp Rules,
1934; Income Tax Act, 1961; Stamp Act, 1899; Penal Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Trap by Anti-Corruption Branch; Stamp vendor; Public servant; Public
duty; Demand of bribe; Mode of remuneration; Commission; Masterservant relationship; Principal-agent relationship; Phenolphthalein
smeared notes; Turned solution of sodium carbonate pink;
Remuneration; Definition of "public servant"; Offer to pay by the
bribe-giver; Licensed stamp vendor; Stamp vendors, if public
servants; Discount; Purchase of stamp papers; Remunerated by
government; Demand for illegal gratification and acceptance thereof
in trap laid; Legislative intent of statute; Curbing growing menace
of corruption in government and semi-government departments;
Purposive construction; Interpretation of 'Remuneration'; Meaning of
'Commission'; Determination of status of public servant; Public duty as
determinant; Manner of appointment; Mode of remuneration; Primary
test of qualification; Interpretation of statutes; Rule of interpretation.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
2613 of 2014
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.09.2014 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLA No. 348 of 2013
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
S.K.Rungta, Sr. Adv., Prashant Singh, Neeraj Kumar Sharma,
Ms. Ishani, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal.
68
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Mrs. Chitrangda
Rashtaravara, Ms. Shagun Thakur, Aaditya Shankar Dixit, Ms. Satvika
Thakur, Ishaan Sharma.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the
following parts:-
INDEX*
A.
FACTUAL MATRIX ............................................................
2
B.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ...................................................
4
C.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ........
6
D.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ....
9
E.
ISSUE OF CONSIDERATION ............................................ 10
F.
ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 11
i.
Legislative intent behind the definition of "public
servant" under Section 2(c) of the PC Act .............. 11
ii. Stamp Vendors are "Public Servants ....................... 17
a. Interpretation of 'Remuneration' in light of the
Delhi Province Stamp Rules, 1934 ..................... 18
b. Meaning of 'Commission' under Section 194H of
the 1961 Act and Section 2(c)(i) the PC Act ....... 24
iii. Public Duty as the determinant of status of Public
Servant .......................................................................... 29
iv. Legality of appellant's conviction ............................. 32
G
CONCLUSION ..................................................................... 42
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
69
Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi)
1.
This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High
Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 348 of 2013 ("impugned
judgment") by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by
the appellant herein and thereby affirmed the judgment and order
dated 30.01.2013 passed by the Special Judge in Complaint Case
No. 11 of 2009 holding the appellant herein guilty of the offence under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 respectively (for short, "the PC Act").
A.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2.
As per the case of the prosecution, on 09.12.2003, the complainant
went to the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Janakpuri, Delhi to purchase
a stamp paper of Rs. 10/-. The appellant, a licensed stamp vendor,
made a demand of Rs. 12/- for a stamp paper of Rs. 10/-. Against
the excess demand of Rs. 2/-, the complainant lodged a written
complaint with the Anti-Corruption Branch (for short, "ACB"). Pursuant
to the said complaint, a trap was laid by the ACB. The complainant
was handed over one GC note of Rs. 10/- and one GC note of
Rs. 2/-, smeared with phenolphthalein powder, by the Raid Officer.
The complainant alongwith the raiding party left for the Office of
the Sub-Registrar, Janakpuri, Delhi. After reaching there, when the
complainant asked for a stamp paper of Rs. 10/-, the appellant again
made a demand of Rs. 12/-. The complainant gave the smeared
GC notes to the appellant who accepted them with his right hand.
At the signal of the panch witness, the raiding party arrived at the
spot. The appellant was apprehended. The wash of his hand turned
the solution of sodium carbonate pink and the notes were allegedly
recovered from the register kept for maintaining the records of the
stamp papers.
2.1 Upon completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in
the court of Special Judge (Anti-Corruption Brach), Delhi. The
Special Judge framed charges against the appellant for the
offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of the PC Act respectively. The appellant denied
the charges and claimed to be tried.
2.2 In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined nine
witnesses, of whom four are crucial for the adjudication of the
matter at hand:
70
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
i.
Complainant (PW-1);
ii.
Panch witness (PW-4);
iii.
Raid Officer (PW-6);
iv.
Investigating Officer (PW-9)
2.3 The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral as well as the
documentary evidence on record, held the appellant guilty of
the offences with which he was charged and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and
fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7
of the PC Act and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one
year and fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The
sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
B.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
3.
The pivotal issue that fell for the consideration of the High Court
was "whether a stamp vendor is a public servant for the purposes
of the PC Act or not."
3.1 The High Court answered the aforesaid question in the
affirmative. It held that ensuring access to stamp papers, which
are indispensable for legal transactions, falls within the scope of
'performance of a public duty'. The said public duty i.e., vending
of the stamps, is a licensed activity regulated under the statutes
governing the sale of judicial and non-judicial stamp papers.
It further held that the fact that stamp vendors purchase these
papers at a discounted rate before selling them to the public
does not diminish the public nature of the duty they perform. The
High Court added that in terms of Explanation 1 to Section 2
of the PC Act, it is not necessary for the stamp vendor to be
'appointed' by the Government in order to be a public servant.
3.2 The High Court also adverted to the Delhi Province Stamp
Rules, 1934 (for short, "the 1934 Rules") and observed that
Rule 28 of the 1934 Rules stipulates the conditions governing
the grant of license to a stamp vendor and violation of the said
rule would amount to an illegal act. Further, Rule 28(xx) states
that the remuneration to the vendor in the form of a discount is
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
71
Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi)
allowed from time to time by the orders of the local Government.
The High Court further took note of Rule 34 which provides for
remuneration to stamp vendors by entitling the licensed vendor
of stamps to discount on the amount of purchase.
3.3 Further, the High Court analysed the question whether any
"remuneration, fees or commission" was being paid to the
stamp vendors by the Government. In other words, whether the
discount availed by the stamp vendor at the time of purchase
of stamps from the treasury could be said to be 'commission'
paid for the purpose of performing duty in terms of Section
2(c)(i) of the PC Act. The Court observed that the 1934 Rules
clearly indicate the nature of the remuneration paid to a
stamp vendor. The Court termed the said discount as a fee
for performing the task of a licensed agent of the Government.
Further, from the reading of Rule 34(ii) and 34(iii) of the 1934
Rules respectively, the Court reached the conclusion that what
is paid as commission to the stamp vendors is a discount at the
given rate on the stamps purchased and the same is treated
as a commission.
3.4 Lastly, the High Court considered the decision of the High
Court of Gujarat in Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association
v. Union of India, reported in 2002 SCC OnLine Guj 135,
relied upon by the appellant to fortify his submission that
once the stamp papers are purchased by the vendor from the
treasury, there is complete ownership of the stamp papers
with the vendors. The High Court held that the said decision
is not applicable to the facts of the case in the same way as
it was rendered in the context of Section 194H of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the 1961 Act") and the meaning of
'commission' was not considered in the light of Section 2(c)(i)
of the PC Act.
3.5 Thereafter, the High Court proceeded to look into the evidence
on record to ascertain the correctness of the finding of the
guilt. The High Court noted that the panch witness had been
consistent as regards his statement about the appellant having
accepted the tainted money. In this context, the Court observed
that if the appellant had not demanded excess Rs. 2/-, there
was no occasion to accept it in the first place.
72
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
3.6 As regards the recovery of GC notes - whether those were
recovered from possession of the appellant or from the
register lying on his table, the Court observed that the wash
of the appellant's hand did turn pink, and both the GC notes
were found, even if not directly from the appellant, then too
certainly the notes were found placed on the register. Further,
the testimony of the Raid Officer, that it was the panch witness
who pointed out that money accepted by the appellant was lying
on his register, was found to be reliable and trustworthy. The
panch witness also stated that the accused made an entry in
the register after accepting the money. The High Court was of
the view that the evidence of the complainant corroborated by
the evidence of the Raid Officer established the culpability of
the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
C.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
4.
Mr. S. K. Rungta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant submitted that the prosecution instituted against the
appellant under the PC Act itself was not maintainable. It was argued
that at best the prosecution could have been under the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899 (for short, "the 1899 Act") alongwith the 1934 Rules,
as these comprehensively regulate the sale of stamp papers by
licensed vendors and constitute a complete code for offences related
to stamps. The license of the appellant was cancelled in terms of
Section 69 of the 1899 Act read with Rule 29 of the 1934 Rules.
He submitted in arguendo that, the said cancellation was one of
the consequences of alleged demand of excess amount of Rs. 2/-.
Hence, even if the appellant would have been found guilty under the
framework of the 1899 Act, the maximum possible sentence would
have been significantly lower than what the Trial Court has imposed
in the present case.
4.1 Mr. Rungta further submitted that a bare perusal of Section 2(c)
of the PC Act reveals that a 'public servant' has a co-relation
with the service or office under the Central Government, State
Government or the local authority. He argued that the definition
is exhaustive and a licensed stamp vendor does not fall in
any of the clauses. Therefore, the appellant cannot be said to
be in service or in office of the Central or State Government.
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
73
Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi)
Further, Mr. Rungta invited the Court's attention to Section 7
of the PC Act, prior to the amendment of 2018 and submitted
that the provision deals with acceptance of any gratification
for showing any favour or disfavour to any person in relation
to an official act. To support his submission, he argued that an
excess amount of Rs. 2/- could not be said to be the motive or
reward for showing favour or disfavour with Central Government
or State Government.
4.2 The second limb of Mr. Rungta's submission was that the
prosecution had failed to prove the demand and acceptance
of an excess amount of Rs. 2/- for sale of stamp paper of face
value of Rs. 10/-. He submitted that the panch witness failed to
support the case of prosecution of demand of Rs. 12/- thereby
rendering the arrest memo, search and seizure memo also
doubtful. Further, the Investigating Officer admitted that the
time of arrest of the appellant was 7:15 PM, however, the raid
was conducted around 3:45 PM.
4.3 He further submitted that there are glaring inconsistencies in
the testimony of the panch witness and the complainant as
regards the recovery of the GC notes. The High Court in the
impugned judgment expressed doubts on the recovery of the
GC notes since the seizure memo and other documents were
drawn up only later at the office of the ACB. He submitted that
even the bottle containing the sodium carbonate solution was
sealed later at the Office of the ACB.
4.4 Mr. Rungta also highlighted a few mitigating circumstances
for the purpose of reducing the sentence awarded by the Trial
Court, more particularly, the fact that the appellant was only
19 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence.
4.5 In such circumstances referred to above, he prayed that there
being merit in the present appeal, the same may be allowed and
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court may
be set aside and the appellant herein may be acquitted of the
charges levelled against him. Lastly, Mr. Rungta highlighted a
few of the mitigating circumstances for the purpose of reducing
the sentence of awarded by the Trial Court, more particularly
the fact that the appellant was only 19 years of age at the time
of the commission of the offence.
74
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
D.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
5.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, the learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the respondent State, on the other hand, submitted
that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have
been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned judgment.
She submitted that the High Court has rightly taken the view that
the licensed stamp vendor is a public servant for the purposes
of the PC Act. She further submitted that the 1934 Rules, more
particularly Rule 34 therein makes it abundantly clear that what is
paid to the vendors by the Government is remuneration in the form
of discount. It was argued that the term "remunerated" occurring in
Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act should be given a meaningful
interpretation so as not to frustrate the object of the PC Act. She
further argued that a stamp vendor cannot get away with his liability
under the PC Act by arguing that what is paid by the Government
is in the form of a discount and not remuneration.
5.1 The learned A.S.G. submitted that the reliance placed by
the appellant on the decision of the Division Bench of the
High Court of Gujarat in the case of Ahmedabad Stamp
Vendors Association (supra), as affirmed by this Court
in Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad & Ors. v.
Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association, reported in
(2014) 16 SCC 114, is totally misconceived and is of no avail
to the appellant. She argued that the said decision was in
the context of Tax Deducted at Source on "commission or
brokerage" under the contract of agency. In other words, the
said decision was considered only in the context of Section
194H of the 1961 Act.
5.2 She contended that the relationship between the Government
and the stamp vendors is that of principal and agent. The
learned A.S.G. further submitted that the High Court was right
not only in saying that the stamp vendors are public servants
for the purposes of the PC Act but even otherwise on merits
also, the High Court rightly affirmed the judgment and order of
conviction passed by the Trial Court.
5.3 In such circumstances referred to above, the learned A.S.G.
prayed that there being no merit in this appeal, the same may
be dismissed.
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
75
Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi)
E.
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
6.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having
gone through the materials on record, the following two questions
fall for our consideration:-
a.
Whether the High Court was right in holding that a licensed
stamp vendor falls within the ambit of a public servant for the
purposes of the PC Act?
b.
If the answer to the aforesaid question is in the affirmative,
then whether the conviction of the appellant herein on merits
is sustainable?
F.
ANALYSIS
i.
Legislative intent behind the definition of "public servant"
under Section 2(c) of the PC Act
7.
Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either side,
we deem it absolutely necessary to look into the backdrop of the PC
Act. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that, the repealed Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act 1947"), was enacted
with the avowed object and purpose of effectively preventing bribery
and corruption. The PC Act which repeals and replaces the 1947
Act provides for a very wide definition of the term "public servant"
in clause (c) of Section 2.
8.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons, attached to the Bill by
which the PC Act was introduced by the legislature, throws light on
the intention of the legislature in providing a very comprehensive
definition of the words "public servant". It gives the background in
which the legislation was enacted. The PC Act, which contains a
much wider definition of "public servant", was brought in force to
purify the public administration. Para 3 of the Statement of Objects
and Reasons reads thus:
"3. The Bill, inter alia, envisages widening the scope of the
definition of the expression 'public servant', incorporation
of offences under Sections 161 to 165-A of the Penal
Code, 1860, enhancement of penalties provided for
these offences and incorporation of a provision that the
order of the trial court upholding the grant of sanction
76
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
for prosecution would be final if it has not already been
challenged and the trial has commenced. In order to
expedite the proceedings, provisions for day-to-day trial
of cases and prohibitory provisions with regard to grant
of stay and exercise of powers of revision on interlocutory
orders have also been included."
9.
The appellants in State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai
Shah, reported in (2020) 20 SCC 360, referred to the notes on
clauses of Prevention of Corruption Bill dated 20.02.1987 to clarify
the legislative intent behind the statute. The relevant extract has
been reproduced hereinbelow:
"36. Our attention was also drawn to the notes on clauses of
Prevention of Corruption Bill dated 20-2-1987. Clause 2 of
the Notes on Clauses in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary,
Part II, Section 2, clarifies the legislative intent, wherein it
was commented as under:
"2. This clause defines the expressions used in
the Bill. Clause 2(c) defines "public servant". In the
existing definition the emphasis is on the authority
employing and the authority remunerating. In the
proposed definition the emphasis is on public duty.
The definition of "election" is based on the definition
of this expression in the Penal Code, 1860."
(emphasis supplied)"
10. Under the repealed 1947 Act, the definition of "public servant" was
restricted to public servants as defined in Section 21 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC"). In order to curb bribery and
corruption not only in government establishments and departments
but also in other semi-governmental authorities and bodies and their
departments where the employees are entrusted with public duty,
a comprehensive definition of "public servant" was introduced in
Section 2(c) of the PC Act.
11. When the legislature has used such a comprehensive definition of
"public servant" to achieve the purpose of punishing and curbing
growing corruption in government and semi-government departments,
it would be appropriate not to limit the contents of the definition
clause by a construction which would be against the spirit of the
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
77
Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi)
statute. The definition of "public servant", therefore, deserves a
wide and purposive construction. In construing the definition of
"public servant" in Section 2(c) of the PC Act, the Court is required
to adopt a purposive approach as would give effect to the intention
of the legislature.
12. In the aforesaid context, we deem it appropriate to refer to the
decision of this Court in State of M.P. v. Ram Singh, reported in
(2000) 5 SCC 88, wherein this Court observed as follows:-
"9. The menace of corruption was found to have enormously
increased by the First and Second World War conditions.
Corruption, at the initial stages, was considered confined
to the bureaucracy which had the opportunities to deal
with a variety of State largesse in the form of contracts,
licences and grants. Even after the war the opportunities
for corruption continued as large amounts of government
surplus stores were required to be disposed of by the public
servants. As a consequence of the wars the shortage of
various goods necessitated the imposition of controls and
extensive schemes of post-war reconstruction involving
the disbursement of huge sums of money which lay in
the control of the public servants giving them a wide
discretion with the result of luring them to the glittering
shine of wealth and property. In order to consolidate and
amend the laws relating to prevention of corruption and
matters connected thereto, the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947 was enacted which was amended from time
to time. In the year 1988 a new Act on the subject being
Act 49 of 1988 was enacted with the object of dealing
with the circumstances, contingencies and shortcomings
which were noticed in the working and implementation of
the 1947 Act. The law relating to prevention of corruption
was essentially made to deal with the public servants,
not as understood in common parlance but specifically
defined in the Act.
10. The Act was intended to make effective provisions for
the prevention of bribery and corruption rampant amongst
the public servants. It is a social legislation intended to curb
illegal activities of the public servants and is designed to
78
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
be liberally construed so as to advance its object. Dealing
with the object underlying the Act this Court in R.S. Nayak
v. A.R. Antulay [(1984) 2 SCC 183 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 172]
held: (SCC p. 200, para 18)
"18. The 1947 Act was enacted, as its long title shows,
to make more effective provision for the prevention
of bribery and corruption. Indisputably, therefore, the
provisions of the Act must receive such construction
at the hands of the court as would advance the object
and purpose underlying the Act and at any rate not
defeat it. If the words of the statute are clear and
unambiguous, it is the plainest duty of the court to
give effect to the natural meaning of the words used in
the provision. The question of construction arises only
in the event of an ambiguity or the plain meaning of
the words used in the statute would be self-defeating.
The court is entitled to ascertain the intention of the
legislature to remove the ambiguity by construing
the provision of the statute as a whole keeping in
view what was the mischief when the statute was
enacted and to remove which the legislature enacted
the statute. This rule of construction is so universally
accepted that it need not be supported by precedents.
Adopting this rule of construction, whenever a question
of construction arises upon ambiguity or where two
views are possible of a provision, it would be the duty
of the court to adopt that construction which would
advance the object underlying the Act, namely, to
make effective provision for the prevention of bribery
and corruption and at any rate not defeat it."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. What is relevant to note from the aforesaid is that the PC Act was
enacted after the repeal of the 1947 Act with the object of dealing
with the circumstances, contingencies and shortcomings which were
noticed in the working and implementation of the 1947 Act. The law
relating to prevention of corruption was essentially made to deal with
the public servants, not as understood in common parlance but as
specifically defined in the PC Act.
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
79
Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi)
14. While holding that a deemed university would fall within the ambit
of the PC Act, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Mansukhbhai
Kanjibhai Shah (supra) observed that it falls upon the courts to
interpret provisions of an anti-corruption legislation in a manner to
strengthen the fight against corruption. It was further added that in
case two views are possible, the court should accept the one that
seeks to eradicate corruption over the one which seeks to perpetuate
it. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
"25. However, we are concerned herein with interpreting
the provisions of the PC Act. There is no dispute that
corruption in India is pervasive. Its impact on the nation
is more pronounced, due to the fact that India is still a
developing economy. Presently, it can be stated that
corruption in India has become an issue which affects all
walks of life. In this context, we must state that although
anti-corruption laws are fairly stringent in India, the
percolation and enforcement of the same are sometimes
criticised as being ineffective. Due to this, the constitutional
aspirations of economic and social justice are sacrificed
on a daily basis. It is in the above context that we need
to resolve the issues concerned herein.
26. In Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh
[Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC
64 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 1041 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 666],
this Court observed : (SCC p. 100, para 68)
"68. Today, corruption in our country not only poses
a grave danger to the concept of constitutional
governance, it also threatens the very foundation of
Indian democracy and the rule of law. The magnitude
of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the
concept of a socialist secular democratic republic.
It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins
all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights,
chokes development and undermines justice, liberty,
equality, fraternity which are the core values in our
Preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court
is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted
and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen
80
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the fight against corruption. That is to say in a
situation where two constructions are eminently
reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that
seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks
to perpetuate it.
xxx
44. As discussed earlier, the object of the PC Act
was not only to prevent the social evil of bribery and
corruption, but also to make the same applicable
to individuals who might conventionally not be
considered public servants. The purpose under
the PC Act was to shift focus from those who are
traditionally called public officials, to those individuals
who perform public duties. Keeping the same in
mind, as rightly submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant State, it cannot be stated
that a "deemed university" and the officials therein,
perform any less or any different a public duty, than
those performed by a university simpliciter, and the
officials therein."
(Emphasis supplied)
ii.
Stamp Vendors are "Public Servants"
15. In light of the observations made by this Court in Ram Singh
(supra) and Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai (supra), we now proceed
to assess whether a stamp vendor comes within the purview of a
"public servant" as defined under Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act. The
provision reads thus:
"(c) "public servant" means, -
(i) any person in the service or pay of the Government or
remunerated by the Government by fees or commission
for the performance of any public duty;"
16. A person would be a public servant under Section 2(c)(i) of the PC
Act if he is:
1.
in the service of the Government; or
2.
in the pay of the Government;
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
81
Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi)
3.
remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of
any public duty.
17. All three categories are independent of each other. There may be
cases where more than one of the aforesaid categories are applicable
and "or" may be read as "and", however, the present case does not
warrant such reading.
18. In the present factual matrix, for the appellant to be a public servant
under Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act, two conditions will have to be
fulfilled:
1.
First, whether he is remunerated by the Government through
fees or commission; and
2.
Secondly, whether such remuneration is for the performance
or discharge of a public duty.
a.
Interpretation of 'Remuneration' in light of the Delhi Province
Stamp Rules, 1934
19. To arrive at a decision on the first aspect, what is required to be
determined is whether the discount received by the appellant is
remuneration in the 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. To determine whether the
appellant was being remunerated by the Government, we must make
a reference to the 1934 Rules. Rule 1(f) defines the expression,
"licensed agent", whereas, Rule 1(g) along with Rule 22 defines the
term "vendor". The same reads thus:-
"(f) the expression "Licensed Agent" means and includes
every person who, for the time being holds a licence
granted under these rules, to sell stamps, but does not
include a specially licensed agent or an ex-officio agent,
as such, though an ex-officio agent may, if duly licensed,
be also a licensed agent. The expression "licence" means
a licensed agent's license;"
"(g) the term "vendor" includes an ex-officio agent, a
licensed agent and a specially licensed agent"
xxx
82
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
22. Vendors - There will be two classes of agent, namely -
(a) ex-officio agent as vendor, defined in rule I(e).
(b) licensed or specially licensed agent as defined in rule
I(f), (g) & (h)."
Rule 26 stipulates that the Collector or any other officer empowered
by the local Government can grant license for the sale of stamps.
20. Rule 2 stipulates that the Controller of Stamps is responsible for
supplying stamps that are required by the local Government. The
Controller of Stamps supplies stamps on the request of treasury
officers. As per Rule 3, the district treasury has been constituted as
a local depot and the sub-treasury has been constituted as a branch
depot for the custody and sale of stamps.
21. Rule 17 mandates that utmost care must be taken to ensure that no
licensed vendor is hindered from obtaining stamps from treasuries.
Furthermore, it stipulates that vendors must be permitted to procure
supplies on any day and at any hour during treasury working hours,
without unnecessary delay.
22. Further, Rule 28 states the conditions which every license granted
under the rules is subject to. Rule 28(vii) prescribes that a vendor
is bound to sell stamps on immediate payment permitted by his
license. Further, he shall not demand or accept for any stamp any
consideration exceeding the value of such stamp. Rule 28(xiii) also
mandates that the vendor shall make corresponding entries in his
vend register and get the entry attested by the purchaser. Upon
filling up of the register, the vendor has to deliver the same to the
Collector or any other officer deputed to receive the same.
23. Lastly, Rule 28(xx) mandates that the remuneration to the vendor
shall be in the form of discount allowed from time to time under the
orders of the local Government. In furtherance, Rule 34 states the
rule for remuneration of vendors, under the heading "Commission
allowed on Court-fee stamps". It states that every licensed vendor
of court-fee stamps shall be entitled to discount at the rate of 1%
on stamps upto Rs. 100 in a single transaction purchased by him,
however, the total value of stamps shall neither be less than Rs. 10/-
nor in excess of a multiple of Rs. 10/-. The said rule is reproduced
hereinbelow:
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
83
Aman Bhatia v.