https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770123 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. en-us Fri, 02 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 May 2025 14:26:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770123 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 02 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770123