AMAN BHATIA versus STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)

Citation: [2025] 6 S.C.R. 64 · Decided: 01-05-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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) – Appellant-
licensed 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
s

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.