<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Stamp Vendor&#039;s Public Servant Status Affirmed: Bribery Charges Dropped Due to Insufficient Evidence Under Prevention of Corruption Act</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88112</link>
    <description>SC held that stamp vendors are public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court adopted a purposive interpretation of &quot;public servant&quot; definition, emphasizing the nature of public duty performed. The appellant&#039;s status as a government-remunerated stamp vendor facilitating revenue collection qualifies him as a public servant. However, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, finding insufficient evidence to prove bribery. The appeal was allowed, quashing the trial court and high court&#039;s previous convictions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 09:18:14 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 09:18:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=820080" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Stamp Vendor&#039;s Public Servant Status Affirmed: Bribery Charges Dropped Due to Insufficient Evidence Under Prevention of Corruption Act</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88112</link>
      <description>SC held that stamp vendors are public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court adopted a purposive interpretation of &quot;public servant&quot; definition, emphasizing the nature of public duty performed. The appellant&#039;s status as a government-remunerated stamp vendor facilitating revenue collection qualifies him as a public servant. However, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, finding insufficient evidence to prove bribery. The appeal was allowed, quashing the trial court and high court&#039;s previous convictions.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 09:18:14 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>