Public servant status of licensed stamp vendor affirmed, but corruption conviction failed for lack of proof of demand and acceptance.

A licensed stamp vendor was treated as a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act because Section 2(c)(i) was applied purposively, focusing on the public duty performed and the Government-paid discount as remuneration for facilitating stamp distribution and revenue collection. The conviction for corruption, however, failed because proof of demand is the gravamen of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), and the evidence showed inconsistencies between the complainant and panch witness, with no reliable proof of demand or acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of such proof, the presumption under Section 20 did not arise.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a licensed stamp vendor falls within the definition of "public servant" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; (ii) Whether the conviction of the appellant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was sustainable on the evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

Issue (i): Whether a licensed stamp vendor falls within the definition of "public servant" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis: The definition of "public servant" in Section 2(c)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was held to be purposive and wide, with the emphasis placed on the nature of the duty performed rather than the formal mode of appointment. Under the Delhi Province Stamp Rules, 1934, the licensed vendor was remunerated by way of discount allowed by the Government, and that discount constituted remuneration for performing an important public duty in facilitating the distribution of stamp papers and the collection of revenue.

Conclusion: Yes. A licensed stamp vendor falls within Section 2(c)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and is a public servant.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction of the appellant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was sustainable on the evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

Analysis: Proof of demand is the gravamen of offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and mere recovery of tainted currency is insufficient. The evidence showed material inconsistencies between the complainant and the panch witness on the demand and recovery, the panch witness could not clearly support the demand, and the surrounding circumstances did not establish acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of reliable proof of demand and acceptance, the presumption under Section 20 did not arise.

Conclusion: No. The conviction was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The definition of "public servant" was applied broadly to include the licensed stamp vendor, but the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction and sentence could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: For the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a person may be a public servant if the Government remunerates him for performing a public duty, and a conviction for offences of corruption cannot be sustained without proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.

---