SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Del) 2541

DELHI HIGH COURT
Suresh Kait, J.
Aman Bhatia - Appellant
Versus
State - Resopndent
Crl. M.C. No. 2283 of 2011
Decided On : 23-03-2012

For the Petitioner:Mr. Ajay Burman, Mr. Vinod Charan , Mr. Ramandeep Bawa, Advocates.
For the State : Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP with SI Anil Kumar, Police Station AC Branch.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of legal provisions defining a public servant and the applicability of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Stamp Act to the actions of a licensed stamp-paper vendor.

Headnote:

Stamp Papers - Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Indian Stamp Act - Section 7/13 of PoC Act, Section 69 of the Stamp Act - 2(c) (i) of the PoC Act - Delhi Province Stamp Rules, 1934 - Rule 28 - Commission, Discount, Public Servant - Interpretation of Legal Provisions

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to set aside/quash the FIR and criminal proceedings against him under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 69 of the Stamp Act. The petitioner, a stamp-paper vendor, was alleged to have demanded and accepted more than the face value of a stamp paper, leading to the registration of the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the petitioner, as a licensed stamp-paper vendor, was being paid commission by the government for selling stamp papers, making him a public servant under Section 2(c) (i) of the PoC Act. The Court held that the provisions of the PoC Act were applicable to the petitioner, and there was no discrepancy, perversity, or illegality in the impugned order. The Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in it.

Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the Trial Court, the interpretation of legal provisions defining a public servant, and the applicability of the PoC Act and the Stamp Act to the petitioner's actions as a stamp-paper vendor.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the legal provisions, particularly Section 2(c) (i) of the PoC Act and Rule 28 of the Delhi Province Stamp Rules, 1934, to determine the petitioner's status as a public servant and the applicability of the PoC Act to the petitioner's actions. The Court found that the petitioner's receipt of commission from the government for selling stamp papers made him a public servant and upheld the Trial Court's jurisdiction and the applicability of the PoC Act and the Stamp Act to the petitioner's actions.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, finding no discrepancy, perversity, or illegality in the impugned order, and upheld the Trial Court's jurisdiction and the applicability of the PoC Act and the Stamp Act to the petitioner's actions as a stamp-paper vendor.

JUDGMENT :

Suresh Kait, J.

1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought to set aside/quash the FIR No.62/2003 registered with police station Anti-Corruption Branch under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as 'PoC Act') and Section 69 of the Stamp Act. Also sought quashing the criminal proceedings including the summoning order dated 25.01.2006 and order on charge and formal charge framed against the petitioner vide order dated 02.06.2008 in case titled ‘State v. Aman Bhatia’ by learned Special Judge, Delhi.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that vide aforementioned FIR dated 09.12.2003 case for the offence punishable under Section 7/13 PoC Act was registered at police station A.C. Branch against the petitioner.

3. Vide order dated 02.06.2008 formal charges were framed against him under the offences mentioned above.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision Petition No.510/2008 before this Court against the order on charge dated 02.06.2008. Vide order dated 08.09.2008 this Court issued notice in the said petition and also stayed the proceedings before learned Trial Court.

5. On 30.03.2011, the said petition listed before this Court and the Court was of the opinion that revision was barred against an interlocutory order. Therefore, learned counsel for petitioner sought leave to withdraw the aforesaid petition while reserving the right of the petitioner to seek his remedy in accordance with law. Accordingly, said petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition; hence, the instant petition.

6. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted a licence to vend non-judicial/Court Fees stamp papers subject to the conditions as contained in Delhi Province Stamp Rules, 1934 as framed under the Indian Stamps Act. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 09.12.2003 one Shiv Charan gave a written complaint to the Anti - Corruption Branch of Delhi Police enumerating therein that on 09.12.2003 he went to purchase stamp paper of Rs.10/- but the petitioner demanded Rs.12/- for the said stamp paper. Accordingly, on the basis of said complaint, a raiding team was organised. The petitioner was arrested on the allegations of demanding and accepting Rs.12/- in the form of Indian currency notes of denomination of Rs.10/- and Rs.2/- which were treated with phenolphthalein, for the purchase of the stamp paper of Rs.10/-. Accordingly, the police registered the FIR under Section 7/13 of PoC Act and Section 69 of the Indian Stamp Act against the petitioner.

7. On completion of the investigation, prosecution filed the charge sheet under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. against petitioner for the offences mentioned above. Vide order dated 25.01.2006, learned Trial Court took the cognizance and issued summoning order against the petitioner.

8. Vide order dated 02.06.2008 after hearing both the parties, passed the order on charge under Section 7/13 of the PoC Act and also framed charges for the said offences punishable under Section 7/13 of the PoC Act against the petitioner.

9. The petitioner has filed the instant petition on the ground that the Trial Court framed charges contrary to law assuming jurisdiction under PoC Act, arbitrarily, illegal and are nullity because of the fact that the petitioner wrongly inferred that he is a public servant.

10. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the impugned order passed on the presumption that the petitioner was authorised to sell stamp papers to public at large on payment of cash equivalent to the value of the stamp paper, and, therefore, was being paid ''commission” in the form of remuneration as defined under Section 2(c) (i) of the PoC Act. For convenience, said provision is reproduced as under:-

"2. Definitions - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires - (c) Public Servant means- (i) Any person in the service or pay of Government or remunerated by the Government by fee or commissi

















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top