Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2099
High Court of Delhi
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
Naval Kishore & Another
Versus
State
CRL.A. No. 192 of 2008 & CRL.A. No. 348 of 2013
Decided on: 12-09-2014
For the Appellants:Abhinav Bajaj, Bharat Sharma, S.K. Rungta, Senior Advocate with Prashant Singh, Meena Dua, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Rajat Katyal, Isha Khanna, APP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that licensed stamp vendors are considered public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on the remuneration paid to them and the nature of their duties.
Headnote:
Stamp Vendor - Public Servant - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)) - The court held that licensed stamp vendors are public servants within the meaning of Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act, based on the remuneration paid to the stamp vendors and the nature of their duties.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals involved the question of whether a stamp vendor is a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellants, licensed stamp vendors, were convicted for demanding excess amounts for stamp papers, and their appeals were dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants, as licensed stamp vendors, were performing a public duty and receiving remuneration in the form of a discount on the purchase of stamps from the government. The court affirmed their convictions under the PC Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether licensed stamp vendors are considered public servants under the PC Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the discount offered to the stamp vendors constitutes 'commission' under Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act, and the licensed stamp vendors are performing a public duty regulated under the statutes governing the sale of stamp papers.
Final Decision: Both appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were directed to surrender and serve out the remainder of their respective sentences.
1. Both these criminal appeals raise an interesting question of law: Is a stamp vendor a public servant for the purposes of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’)?
2. Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 2008 by Naval Kishore is directed against the judgment dated 4th February 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge in Complainant Case No. 21/2004 convicting the Appellant for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("PC Act"). The appeal is also against the order dated 5th February 2008 whereby for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment ("RI") for a period of 6 months along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment ("SI") for a period of one month and for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act he was sentenced to undergo RI for one year along with fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default to undergo SI for a period of one month. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. Criminal Appeal No. 348 of 2013 by Aman Bhatia is directed against the judgment dated 30th January 2013 passed by the learned Special Judge in Complainant Case No. 11/2009 convicting the Appellant for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act as well as the order on sentence dated 31st January 2013 whereby for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, the Appellant was sentenced to RI for a period of 6 months along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo SI for one month and for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act he was sentenced to undergo RI for one year along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo SI for one month. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. What is common in both the appeals is that both the Appellants were at the relevant time licensed Stamp vendors. While Appellant Naval Kishore was holding licence No. 226 and was authorised to sell stamps and court fees at Karkardooma Courts complex, Appellant Aman Bhatia held licence No. 594 and was selling stamp papers at the office of the Sub-Registrar Janakpuri, Delhi.
Crl. A. No. 192 of 2008 by Naval Kishore
5. The allegations in both cases were also similar. As far as Naval Kishore was concerned, the allegation was that on 17th October 2003, the complainant Jai Singh (PW-5), who was working as a Court clerk with an Advocate, gave a complaint (Ex.PW/5A) to the Anti Corruption Branch ("ACB") which was recorded by Inspector Vipin Kumar Nair (Raid officer) (PW-8) in the presence of the panch witness Kumar Sambhav (PW-6) to the effect that the Appellant Naval Kishore was charging Rs.10/-, Rs.5/- and Rs.2/-in excess for stamp papers of denominations Rs.100/-, Rs.50/- and Rs.10/- respectively. PW-5 gave two Government currency notes ("GC notes"), one of Rs.100/- and the other Rs.10/- to PW-8 who noted down their serial numbers in the pre-raid report (Ex.PW5/B). The GC notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and a demonstration was given of its effect by PW-8. The treated GC notes were then handed over to PW-5 in order to be given to the Appellant. PW-6 was instructed to remain close to PW-5 so that he could overhear and observe the transaction. At around 12.10 pm, the raiding team, which included PW-5 and PW-6, Inspector B.S. Yadav (PW-7), Investigating Officer ("IO") and certain others, went to the Karkardooma Court Complex. While PW-7 remained outside, PWs 5 and 6 moved towards the hall where the stamp vendors sat. At around 1.10 pm, PW-8 received the predetermined signal from PW-6. PW-8 rushed to the spot where he was told by PW-6 that the Appellant had taken Rs.10/- extra for giving two stamp papers of Rs.50/- each and had kept it beneath the register lying on the table. PW-6 was asked by PW-8 to recover the bribe amount along with GC note of Rs.100/- from beneath the register. The serial numbers on th
