Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan has allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While upholding that licensed stamp vendors perform a public duty and fall within the definition of "public servant" under the Act, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the crucial elements of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court began its examination by addressing the preliminary question of whether the appellant, as a licensed stamp vendor, qualified as a “public servant” under Section 2(c)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court examined the legislative history, statutory provisions, and relevant judicial precedents. It recorded that the Act's purpose was to give a comprehensive definition of “public servant” and widen its scope to cover individuals performing public duties, regardless of formal appointment.

“The legislature has used a comprehensive definition of ‘public servant’ to achieve the purpose of punishing and curbing growing corruption. Keeping this intention in mind, the definition should be given a purposive and wide interpretation so as to advance the object underlying the statute.”

Also Read: “Fixing Jurisdiction on Consideration Paid Is Constitutional: Supreme Court : ‘No Right to Inflate Claims to Choose Forum’ Under Consumer Protection Act 2019”

The Court noted that licensed stamp vendors are regulated under the Delhi Province Stamp Rules, 1934, and sell stamps in accordance with government authorization. It was observed that vendors are entitled to procure stamps from the treasury at discounted rates, and the difference between the purchase price and face value operates as a form of remuneration.

“The remuneration envisaged under Rule 28(xx) along with Rule 34 is in the form of discount or commission. The difference between the procurement price and the sale price is by and large because of the scheme devised by the Government. The remuneration remains contingent on the orders of the local Government.”

The Court further clarified that remuneration in the form of a discount constitutes commission, which satisfies the requirements of Section 2(c)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

“It is the nature of duty being discharged by a person which assumes paramount importance. Licensed stamp vendors, by virtue of performing an important public duty and receiving remuneration from the Government, are undoubtedly public servants.”

Turning to the merits of the conviction, the Court meticulously evaluated the evidentiary record. It noted serious inconsistencies regarding the crucial element of demand for illegal gratification. The complainant initially claimed that the appellant demanded Rs. 12, but failed to give clear evidence during the trial. The panch witness, designated to overhear the transaction, expressly stated that he could not recall hearing any demand.

“The panch witness admitted that he could not recollect whether the appellant demanded Rs. 12/- for a stamp paper of Rs. 10/-. He also did not indicate the presence of any implied demand.”

Furthermore, the Court pointed out procedural lapses and discrepancies: “There was unexplained delay of approximately three hours between the apprehension and seizure. The seizure memo and related documents do not reflect proper timing and continuity.”

The Court expressed doubt over whether the positive phenolphthalein test conclusively proved illegal gratification. It noted that one of the two notes was for the legitimate price of the stamp paper, and handling that note could also result in the solution turning pink.

“Since the Rs. 10/- note itself was tainted, it becomes difficult to determine whether the change in colour was triggered by the handling of the Rs. 10/- note or the Rs. 2/- note. Mere turning of the solution pink cannot, by itself, establish acceptance of illegal gratification.”

Relying on precedent including Neeraj Dutta v. State (2023) and P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P. (2015), the Court reaffirmed that mere recovery of tainted currency is insufficient to prove the offence. Demand and voluntary acceptance must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

“The prosecution has failed in establishing the allegation of demand for illegal gratification and acceptance thereof beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) cannot be sustained.”

The Court concluded by stressing the need to adhere to strict standards of proof in corruption cases: “On examination of the entire evidence, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt, the demand of bribe and its acceptance.”

The Supreme Court, after examining the legal and factual aspects in detail, allowed the appeal filed by the appellant. The Court categorically held that while licensed stamp vendors fall within the definition of "public servant" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence, namely the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant were found unsustainable.

The Court set aside the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which had been imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. It observed that material inconsistencies, gaps in evidence, and absence of clear proof of demand rendered the prosecution's case insufficient to meet the strict burden of proof required for conviction under the anti-corruption law.

Also Read: Karnataka HC grants bail to CID DySP | Court cites lack of proximate instigation in suicide case | Psychological autopsy reveals victim faced entrapment and distress, not direct abetment

The Supreme Court therefore ordered that the conviction and sentence awarded by the lower courts be quashed. It directed that the appellant’s conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act stands set aside and that the appellant be acquitted of all charges. It also directed that if any bail bonds had been furnished during the pendency of the appeal, the same shall stand discharged.

The Court concluded its order by stating that all pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

“In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused, as awarded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is set aside. Bail bond(s), if any, shall stand discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Akbar Siddique, AOR, Mr. Sheezan Hashmi, Adv., Mr. Mihir Joshi, Adv., Mr. Aakash Dubey, Adv., Mr. Rahul Khare, Adv., Mr. Parv K Garg, Adv., Mr. Parwez Akhtar, Adv., Mr. Harsh Kumar Singh, Adv., Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR, Mr. Shakti Singh, Adv., Mr. Harshit Sethi, Adv., Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR, Ms. Mansi Tripathi, Adv., Ms. Divya Jain, Adv., Ms. Monica Dhingra, Adv., Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, AOR.

For the Respondents: Mr. S.V. Raju, A.S.G., Mr. Sanjay Kr. Dubey, Adv., Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv., Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv., Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv., Mrs. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv.

Case Title: Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi)

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 618

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2613 of 2014

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan

[Read/Download order]