2025 Supreme(SC) 764

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Aman Bhatia – Appellant
Versus
State (GNCT of Delhi) – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2613 of 2014
Decided On : 02-05-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Illegal gratification – Stamp vendors across the country, by virtue of performing an important public duty and receiving remuneration from Government for discharge of such duty, are public servants within ambit of Section 2(c)(i) of P.C. Act, 1988.
(2) Illegal gratification – Presumption under Section 20 of P.C. Act, 1988 arises once it is established that public servant accepted gratification – Evidence led by prosecution, suggestions made by defence witnesses, entire record is required to be considered.
(3) Interpretation of Statute – Every interpretation of a statute must be undertaken by considering statute in its entirety, prior state of law, other statutes in pari materia, teneral scope and purpose of legislation, and mischief that legislature intended to address.
(4) Illegal gratification – Mere acceptance of illegal gratification without proof of offer by bribe-giver and demand by public servant would not make offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of PC Act.

Headnote:

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 2(c), 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) – Illegal gratification – Conviction and sentence – Definition of “public servant” deserves a wide and purposive construction – In construing definition of “public servant” in Section 2(c) of PC Act, Court is required to adopt a purposive approach as would give effect to intention of Legislature – Stamp vendors across the country, by virtue of performing an important public duty and receiving remuneration from Government for discharge of such duty, are public servants within ambit of Section 2(c)(i) of PC Act – Although Government has imposed restrictions on licensed stamp vendors by way of relevant rules qua manner of carrying on business yet vendors are required to purchase stamps on payment of price less discount on principal-to principal basis – It is nature of duty which is determining factor in deciding whether a person qualifies to be a public servant and not the manner of appointment or mode of remuneration – Once nature of performance of duties gets crystallized, any person remunerated by Government for performance of any public duty or who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorized or required to perform any public duty, is a “public servant” within meaning of term defined under Section 2(c) – Even if an individual does not qualify as a public servant under PC Act, they may still fall within its ambit if they are engaged in discharge of any public duty – Appellant, at relevant time, was being remunerated by Government – Appellant was discharging a duty in which both State and public have interest which brings him within ambit of a public servant as defined under PC Act. (Paras 12, 35, 45, 46, 48 and 49)

(B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sections 13(2) and 20 – Illegal gratification – Overcharging by licensed Stamp Vendor – Conviction and sentence – Mere recovery of tainted money, by itself, is insufficient to establish charges against accused under PC Act – To sustain conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of Act respectively, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that public servant voluntarily accepted money, knowing it to be a bribe – Demand for bribe is sine qua non for establishing offence under Section 7 of PC Act – Mere acceptance of illegal gratification without proof of offer by bribe-giver and demand by public servant would not make offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of PC Act – Prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt, demand of bribe and its acceptance, in a trap laid by ACB – In such circumstances, there is no question of presumption under Section 20 – It would be entirely illegal to uphold conviction of appellant under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) read with Section 13(2) of Act – Conviction and sentence of accused, as awarded by Trial Court and affirmed by High Court, set aside. (Paras 52, 53, 68 and 69)

(C) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 20 – Illegal gratification – Presumption under Section 20 arises once it is established that public servant accepted gratification – However, in determining whether such acceptance occurred, totality of evidence led at trial must be appreciated – Evidence led by prosecution, suggestions made by defence witnesses, entire record is required to be considered – Only if cumulative effect of all evidence is such that sole possible conclusion is that public servant accepted gratification can it be said that prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt – Presumption is contingent upon proof of acceptance of illegal gratification to the effect that gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated under Section 7 of P.C. Act – Such proof of acceptance can follow only when demand is proved. (Paras 64, 65 and 66)

(D) Interpretation of Statute – Rule of Interpretation – It is an important rule of interpretation that every interpretation of a statute must be undertaken by considering statute in its entirety, prior state of law, other statutes in pari materia, teneral scope and purpose of legislation, and mischief that legislature intended to address – Where wording of a statutory provision indicates that legislature has consciously attributed varying degrees of significance to different interpretative elements such as nature of relationship or duty performed, courts are obliged to adhere to that legislative determination and interpret provision in a manner that reflects intended statutory scheme – While interpreting a statute, it is essential not only to consider words used but also to examine Statement of Objects and Reasons, as it provides background against which legislation was enacted – Legislature introduced a comprehensive definition of “public servant” with intent to punish and curb menace of corruption – In such circumstances, it would be improper to construe the definition in a manner that limits its scope, thereby defeating very essence and purpose of statute. (Paras 43 and 44)

Facts of the case:

Pivotal issue that fell for consideration of High Court was “whether a stamp vendor is a public servant for the purposes of the PC Act or not.”

Findings of Court:

Evidence led by prosecution, suggestions made by defence witnesses, if any, entire record is required to be considered. Only if cumulative effect of all the evidence is such that sole possible conclusion is that public servant accepted the gratification can it be said that prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Result : Appeal allowed.