Licensed Stamp-Vendors Are “Public Servants”, But Proof of Demand Remains Sine Qua Non
— Detailed Commentary on Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi), 2025 INSC 618

1. Introduction

In a landmark judgment delivered on 2 May 2025, the Supreme Court of India decided Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi) (Criminal Appeal No. 2613 of 2014). The decision simultaneously (a) enlarges the category of “public servant” under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) to include licensed stamp-vendors and (b) re-emphasises that conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act cannot rest on the mere recovery of tainted money; a proved demand of illegal gratification is indispensable.

Parties
• Appellant: Aman Bhatia, a 19-year-old licensed stamp-vendor in Janakpuri (Delhi).
• Respondent: State (Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi).
Key Charges: Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) PC Act – illegal gratification of ₹2 alleged over the sale of a ₹10 stamp-paper.

Factual Background in Brief

• 9 Dec 2003 — Complainant alleges appellant demanded ₹12 for a ₹10 stamp-paper; Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) lays a trap.
• Marked currency (₹10 + ₹2) smeared with phenolphthalein supplied; appellant allegedly accepts both notes.
• Trial Court convicts; Delhi High Court upholds, chiefly ruling that a stamp-vendor is a “public servant”.
• Supreme Court grants leave; core issues — (i) status of stamp-vendors under Section 2(c)(i) PC Act and (ii) sustainability of conviction on facts.

2. Summary of the Judgment

1. Public-Servant Question: The Court, per Pardiwala J., held that licensed stamp-vendors are “remunerated by the Government by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty” and thus fall within Section 2(c)(i) PC Act.
2. Conviction Set Aside: Despite the above declaration, the appellant’s conviction was quashed because the prosecution failed to prove demand for illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The phenolphthalein test and recovery of notes by themselves were held insufficient.
3. Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence annulled; bail bonds discharged.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

• State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah (2020) 20 SCC 360 — Extended PC Act to officials of deemed universities; emphasised “public duty” over formal appointment. Supreme Court borrows this purposive approach.
• State of M.P. v. Ram Singh (2000) 5 SCC 88 — Stressed liberal interpretation of anti-corruption laws. Forms conceptual backdrop for widening “public servant”.
• Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Assn. v. Union of India 2002 SCC OnLine Guj 135, aff’d (2014) 16 SCC 114 — Held stamp-vendor discount is not “commission” for TDS under Section 194H Income-tax Act. Supreme Court distinguishes it: definition of “commission” in tax law cannot control purposive reading of PC Act.
• Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731 & P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P. (2015) 10 SCC 152 — Reaffirmed that demand is sine qua non; relied upon to set aside conviction.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

(A) Why Stamp-Vendors Are Public Servants

1. Remuneration by Government: • Delhi Province Stamp Rules 1934 (Rules 28 & 34) entitle vendors to a Government-sanctioned discount (≈1%) when purchasing stamps from Treasury.
   • This discount is a commission/fee; without it vendors would have no economic incentive.
   • Therefore they are “remunerated by the Government by fees or commission”.
2. Performance of Public Duty: • Revenue collection via stamp duty is a vital sovereign function; ensuring availability of stamped papers to citizens advances this objective.
   • Section 2(b) PC Act defines “public duty” as one in which “the State, the public or the community at large has an interest”. Stamp vending squarely fits.
3. Purposive Interpretation: • Definition in Section 2(c)(i) is intentionally expansive; court declines to narrow it by importing restrictive notions of agency or ownership from tax jurisprudence.

(B) Why Conviction Failed

1. Unreliable Proof of Demand — Complainant turned partly hostile; panch witness “did not recollect” appellant’s demand; Raid Officer didn’t hear demand.
2. Mere Recovery Insufficient — In light of Neeraj Dutta, recovery plus phenolphthalein test without proof of demand cannot sustain Sections 7/13 conviction.
3. Evidentiary Gaps — 3-hour unexplained delay between raid and IO’s arrival; seizure documents prepared later; possibility that ₹10 note alone caused positive wash (note was legitimately payable).

3.3 Potential Impact of the Judgment

• Expanded PC Act Coverage: All licensed stamp-vendors nationwide now fall within the PC Act. ACBs can prosecute them for corruption offences.
• Guidance on “Public Duty” Test: Affirms that functional connection with a governmental objective (revenue, welfare, etc.) is sufficient; formal employment not essential. May extend to other licensed intermediaries (fair-price shop dealers, authorised transport agents, etc.).
• Re-assertion of Demand Principle: Reinforces defence strategy — challenge proof of demand; prosecution must meticulously record conversations or secure corroboration.
• Tax / PC Act demarcation: Clarifies that interpretations under fiscal statutes (e.g., Income-tax Act) cannot mechanically control anti-corruption statutes.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Public Servant (PC Act): Not confined to Government employees. Anyone paid by the Government (salary, fee, commission) for a public duty is included.
• Public Duty: Any function where society/public has an interest (e.g., issuing licences, collecting revenue, supplying essential goods).
• Phenolphthalein Test: Colourless powder applied to currency; turns pink when it comes in contact with alkali in water — used to show handling of notes.
• Demand vs. Acceptance: • Demand = public servant’s explicit/implicit request for bribe. • Acceptance = taking money with knowledge it’s a bribe. Both must usually be proved for conviction; mere possession/recovery is insufficient.
• Section 20 Presumption: Once acceptance is proved, court shall presume the gratification was illegal unless accused rebuts it. But if acceptance itself is doubtful, presumption doesn’t arise.

5. Conclusion

Aman Bhatia creates a two-fold precedent: it broadens the anti-corruption net by recognising stamp-vendors as public servants, yet simultaneously shields individuals from wrongful conviction by demanding rigorous proof of illegal gratification. The ruling strikes a calibrated balance: widening State accountability mechanisms while safeguarding fair-trial rights. Future prosecutions against similarly placed licensees must now (i) recognise their amenability to PC Act, and (ii) meticulously capture evidence of demand to withstand appellate scrutiny. In the broader legal mosaic, the decision underscores a cardinal interpretative ethic: statutes combating corruption require liberal, purposive reading as to coverage, but strict, evidence-based application as to guilt.

Prepared by: [Your Name], Legal Analyst – Supreme Court Decisions. Date: