JUDGMENT Harbans Lal, J 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/ order of sentence dated 27.11.1997 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge CBI, Patiala whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.1500/-as fine and in default of the same to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as `the Act') and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.1500/-as fine and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act with a further direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Shortly put, facts of the prosecution case are that Sohan Singh – complainant had applied for loan of Rs.25,000/-to the Punjab and Sind Bank, Sharewala vide application Ex.P.A for the purchase of cycle parts. Loan to the tune of Rs.10,000/-comprising subsidy Rs.3,333/-was sanctioned in his favour. On 31.10.1995, he got FDR from the said bank for Rs.3,000/-for a period of one year. When he approached the accused for release of the loan amount, he was told by the latter that the loan amount has not been received as yet. Subsequently, the accused called him and told that the same has been received. During inspection of the shop, the accused demanded from the complainant Rs.1500/-as illegal gratification for issuing him the cheque of the loan amount. On the complainant's request, this amount was reduced to Rs.800/-. He made a false promise to the accused that he would arrange the money and give it to him in the bank. The accused also told the complainant to bring the stamp papers worth Rs.15/- in his name as well as a guarantor. The complainant met Balwinder Singh Shopkeeper of Village Chak Sharewala and disclosed to him about the demand of bribe of Rs.800/-made by the accused as a motive for issuing him the cheque of the loan amount of Rs.10,000/-. Balwinder Singh advised him not to give the bribe. They both approached Ramandeep Singh, DSP Vigilance and disclosed about such demand of bribe. This DSP after completing usual formalities organised a raiding party including the complainant as well as Balwinder Singh who was asked to act as a shadow witness. Balwinder Singh advised him not to give the bribe. They both approached Ramandeep Singh, DSP Vigilance and disclosed about such demand of bribe. This DSP after completing usual formalities organised a raiding party including the complainant as well as Balwinder Singh who was asked to act as a shadow witness. The party proceeded for conducting raid. On the way PW Gian Chand, Accountant was joined from the office of Public Health, Muktsar. He was introduced to the complainant as also the shadow witness. Sohan Singh as well as Balwinder Singh were sent to the Bank building on foot to approach the accused. The remaining members of the raiding party stood near this building. The complainant asked the accused for the release of the loan amount. On being asked by the accused, it was told by the complainant that he had brought the bribe money. The tainted bribe money was handed over by the complainant to the accused, who put the same in the left pocket of his pent. Balwinder Singh came at the seat of the accused who obtained his signatures on the stamp papers. Thereafter, Balwinder Singh went outside the Bank on the appointed signal given by him, Ramandeep Singh DSP and others conducted the raid. When the hands of the accused were got washed in the sodium carbonate solution, the same turned pink. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the left pocket of the pent worn by the accused. The numbers of the recovered currency notes Ex.P2 to Ex.P9 were compared by PW Gian Chand with the numbers already written in a memo. The same tallied. These were seized vide recovery memo Ex.PE attested by PWs Sohan Singh, Balwinder Singh and Gian Chand. Then pent of the accused was got removed. On washing the left pocket of the pent in the solution of water and sodium carbonate, it turned pink. The solution was sealed in a nip Ex.P.11. The pent Ex.P.10 was also turned into a parcel. These were seized vide memo Ex.PF. The Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh opined that the contents of nips were of water, sodium carbonate and phenolphathalein powder. The accused being a Central Government employee, the further investigation was handed over to the CBI which registered its own FIR. The pent Ex.P.10 was also turned into a parcel. These were seized vide memo Ex.PF. The Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh opined that the contents of nips were of water, sodium carbonate and phenolphathalein powder. The accused being a Central Government employee, the further investigation was handed over to the CBI which registered its own FIR. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court for trial of the accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. 3. The accused was charged under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 Sohan Singh (complainant), PW2 Balwinder Singh (shadow witness), PW3 Gian Chand (recovery witness), PW4 Desraj Inspector Vigilance, PW5 Ramandeep Singh DSP Vigilance (Trap Laying Officer), PW6 A.K. Chanda CBI Inspector, PW7 Warriam Singh Manager and PW8 Raj Kumar of M/s Kapil Cycle stores. 4. On close of the prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him. He came up with the plea that “I never demanded any bribe from the complainant, nor I accepted the same. The complainant and the shadow witness in connivance with the vigilance officials have got me falsely implicated in this case.” In his defence, he has examined DW1 Surjit Singh, DW2 Surinder Singh and closed his defence evidence. 5. After hearing the learned public prosecutor for the CBI, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed earlier. Feeling aggrieved with his conviction/ sentence, he has preferred this appeal. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant urged with a good deal of force that Ramandeep Singh DSP, PW5 has nowhere stated that before carrying out the personal search of the accused, he had offered his own personal search to the accused in view of the observations rendered by this Court in re: Sushil Kumar v. State of Punjab 1974 Chandigarh Law Reporter 193 as also relied upon in re: State of Punjab v. Kushal Singh Pathania, 2004(4) Recent Reports (Criminal) 498. Consequently, the possibility of thrusting the tainted currency notes into the said pocket by this DSP cannot be ruled out. He further pressed into service that as would be apparent from the prosecution evidence, the alleged demand of bribe is not corroborated by any independent evidence on the record though it was required to be so in view of Tirlok Singh s/o Inder Singh, Line Superintendent, Patiala v. The State of Punjab, 1983(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 382; Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 621; Mohinder Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1990(3) Recent Criminal Reports 44; Gurcharan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1993(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 450; Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994(2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 63; Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 368 and Amrit Lal v. State of Punjab, 2006(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 796. In the absence of independent corroboration, the evidence of trap witnesses being interested in the success of the case cannot be relied upon. 7. To tide over these submissions, Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for CBI canvassed at the bar that the demand of bribe is corroborated by Gian Chand an independent witness. As regards silence of Ramandeep Singh DSP with regards to offer of his personal search to the accused, no hard and fast rules have been laid down therefor. 8. On a careful consideration of the respective submissions, I am of the view that the contentions raised by Mr. Rai carry no substance for the discussion to follow hereunder. 9. A careful and an indepth study of the entire gamut of the Code of Criminal Procedure would reveal that it nowhere contemplates that it is obligatory upon the Police Officer to offer his own personal search to the accused before making latter's personal search and that in the absence of such offer, the search of the accused would be rendered illegal. In re: Kushal Singh Pathania (supra), the accused was not acquitted on the sole ground that the raid conducting Police Officer had not offered his personal search to the accused. The observations made in re: Sushil Kumar (supra) have been followed in Kushal Singh Pathania's case (supra). In re: Kushal Singh Pathania (supra), the accused was not acquitted on the sole ground that the raid conducting Police Officer had not offered his personal search to the accused. The observations made in re: Sushil Kumar (supra) have been followed in Kushal Singh Pathania's case (supra). In Sushil Kumar's case (supra), this Court has observed as under:- “The evidence of Harbans Singh Inspector can also not be implicitly relied upon, as he did not conduct the search in a proper manner. Neither Beli Ram nor Harbans Singh has deposed that before the accused was searched, Harbans Singh had offered himself to be searched by the accused. Consequently, the possibility that the money had been planted is not ruled out. No doubt, it is not specifically provided in the Criminal Procedure Code that a police officer searching others must offer himself for search and that a search without this formality would be illegal, but in order to inspire confidence in the search conducted by the police officer, it is necessary that he must offer himself for search before searching an accused person. Unless this precaution is taken, it cannot be said that the search was conducted properly and in a manner which was wholly above board. By these observations, it is not implied that in no case can a conviction be based where a police officer was himself not searched or had not offered himself for search. In an appropriate case even in spite of this infirmity, the evidence of the police officer or other witness may be accepted, but a failure to offer himself for search does attach some infirmity to the testimony of a police officer.” 10. It is discernible from these observations that the evidence of the police officer can be accepted though he did not offer himself for search to the accused. To be seen herein, is as to whether or not the search of the accused conducted by Ramandeep Singh DSP (sic.) inspire confidence. A glance through his cross-examination with sedulous care would reveal that he did not harbour any animus, previous ill-will or motive to rope in the accused falsely. His testimony bears the fact that he asked the accused to stand after disclosing his identity. Sohan Singh PW1 has solemnly affirmed that “I had told to the DSP that the accused has put the bribe money in the left pocket of his pent. His testimony bears the fact that he asked the accused to stand after disclosing his identity. Sohan Singh PW1 has solemnly affirmed that “I had told to the DSP that the accused has put the bribe money in the left pocket of his pent. DSP then conducted the search of the accused and recovered the bribe money from the left pocket of his pent. Eight currency notes were recovered each of the denomination of Rs.100/-. The recovered currency notes are Ex.P2 to P.9.” Balwinder Singh PW2, the shadow witness has testified that “ Sohan Singh gave the tainted currency notes to the accused. DSP then searched the accused and he recovered currency notes from the left pocket of his pent. The currency notes are Ex.P2 to P9.” This evidence is a clincher towards the fact that the tainted currency notes were recovered from the left pocket of the pent which the accused was sporting at the time of recovery. This DSP being not inimically disposed of towards the accused in any manner, could not be expected to put the tainted currency notes surreptitiously into the stated pocket. There is no suggestion to this witness that these currency notes were thrusted by him in the pocket of the accused. Thus, suffice it to say that this evidence proprio vigore inspires confidence that the search of the accused was conducted properly. The success or failure of such cases should not turn wholly on the technicality of offer or non-offer of personal search by the Police Officer to the accused. If such immaterial so-called infirmities are allowed to hold sway the guilty persons will go unpunished. If such precaution was necessarily required to be taken by the police officer/ investigator, the legislature in its wisdom would have certainly introduced such provision in the code itself. Thus, there being no substance, the contention raised by Mr. Rai is jettisoned. 11. Sohan Singh (sic.) has solemnly affirmed that “he (referring to the accused) asked from me, if I had brought the bribe money. I replied that I had brought it. I then handed over the bribe money to the accused. He put it in the left pocket of his pent.” This evidence obviously satisfy the ingredient of demand of bribe money by the accused. Balwinder Singh PW2 has deposed that “I and Sohan Singh then entered the bank building. I replied that I had brought it. I then handed over the bribe money to the accused. He put it in the left pocket of his pent.” This evidence obviously satisfy the ingredient of demand of bribe money by the accused. Balwinder Singh PW2 has deposed that “I and Sohan Singh then entered the bank building. There were four tables in the Hall of the bank. The accused was sitting on the fourth table. They were lying in the one straight line. Then Sohan Singh approached the accused. I stood in between the Table No.1 and 2 nearby and I could not hear the conversation between the accused and Sohan Singh. However, I continued watching them. Sohan Singh gave the tainted currency notes to the accused. The accused accepted the bribe money and put it in the left pocket of his pent.” It is in his further evidence that “the accused then called me. He got my signatures on the document as guarantor. I then came out of the bank building and gave signal to Ramandeep Singh DSP.” He has given the explanation as to why he could not overhear the demand of bribe money made by the accused from the complainant. As per his above evidence, indeed, the intervening tables kept him at a distance. Inferrentially, the accused would have certainly accepted the bribe money in pursuance of his demand and only on receipt thereof, he called Balwinder Singh (sic.) to append his signatures as guarantor on the document. It would be going too hyper-technical to say that the ingredient of demand is not established merely because this witness Balwinder Singh could not hear the words of demand of money trickled from the mouth of the accused. Gian Chand PW3 an official witness has solemnly affirmed in his cross-examination that “I did not know Sohan Singh and Balwinder Singh prior to this date.” It implies that he was stranger to these witnesses. That being so, he could not be expected to support the version of these witnesses, if the things or events had not occurred in the manner as suggested by the prosecution. It is in his evidence that “the DSP then conducted the search of the accused. The currency notes were recovered from the left pocket of his pent. Those were eight currency notes each of the denomination of Rs.100/-. It is in his evidence that “the DSP then conducted the search of the accused. The currency notes were recovered from the left pocket of his pent. Those were eight currency notes each of the denomination of Rs.100/-. The numbers of the recovered currency notes were compared with the numbers already written and those tallied.” This evidence clearly demonstrate recovery of tainted currency notes from possession of the accused. In re: Tirlok Singh (supra), Beant Singh along with Sukhpal Singh, shadow witnesses had gone to the office of the appellant on 6.9.1979. The appellant was said to have demanded the bribe money from Beant Singh which was paid to him by the latter. It has been observed that however, this fact is only stated by Beant Singh PW and it is not corroborated by Sukhpal Singh PW7. The latter categorically stated that the appellant never demanded the bribe money from Beant Singh in his presence. Adverting to the instant case, Balwinder Singh (sic.) has nowhere stated that the bribe money was never demanded by the accused from the complainant in his presence. Thus, the facts of Tirlok Singh's case (supra) are distinguishable. As regards Surjit Singh's case (supra), Atma Singh PW4 was confronted with the police statement in his cross-examination, which showed that he never made such a statement before the police. It was in these circumstances held that the independent corroboration to the statement of the complainant as well as the trap witnesses was lacking, whereas in the present case Balwinder Singh as well as Gian Chand PWs have fully supported the prosecution story. In re: Mohinder Singh (supra), Harchand Singh, shadow witness was found inimical towards the accused and in view of this fact, it was held that independent corroboration is not forthcoming at all. In re: Gurcharan Singh (supra), the discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were of material character, which created doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. Herein this case, no material infirmity or discrepancy worth the name has been referred to from the statements of the prosecution witnesses. In re: Mohinder Singh (supra), the evidence of decoy Chamkaur Singh PW3 was held to be not above board, whereas in the present case, the testimony of Balwinder Singh, the shadow witness is above board. Herein this case, no material infirmity or discrepancy worth the name has been referred to from the statements of the prosecution witnesses. In re: Mohinder Singh (supra), the evidence of decoy Chamkaur Singh PW3 was held to be not above board, whereas in the present case, the testimony of Balwinder Singh, the shadow witness is above board. In re: Sarwan Singh (supra), PW2 Bawa Singh had categorically stated that DSP and other officials had tried to thrust money into the pocket of the appellant forcibly. In re: Kushal Singh Pathania (supra), PW6 Jarnail Singh had admitted that the accused had been visiting the factory premises for so long and he had never demanded any illegal gratification. In re: Amrit Lal (supra), the two witnesses before whom the tainted money was recovered were not examined by the prosecution. Thus, ostensibly, the facts of all the authorities relied upon by Mr. Rai are distinguishable from the one in hand. Coming to the defence evidence adduced by the accused, as regards DW1 Surjit Singh, he is peon of the Bank of which the accused is a Manager. Thus, in all probabilities, it was not difficult for the accused to procure his services to depose in his favour. More to the point, his evidence is inconsistent with that of DW2 Surinder Singh, who being a customer of the bank at Chak Sharewala would have also been easily wooed by the appellant to depose in his favour. 12. Every acceptance of illegal gratification whether preceded by a demand or not would be covered by Section 7 of the Act. But of the acceptance of an illegal gratification is in pursuance of a demand by the public servant, then it would also fall under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The act alleged against the appellant of demanding and receiving illegal gratification constitutes an offence under Section 7 and under Section 13(1) (d) of the Act. The offence being a single transaction but falling under two different sections, the appellant cannot be liable for double penalty. As the offence is one which fall under two different sections providing different punishments, the appellant should not be punished with a more severe punishment than the Court could award to the person for any of the two offences. In this case, minimum punishment under Section 7 is six months and the minimum punishment under Section 13(1)(d) is one year. As the offence is one which fall under two different sections providing different punishments, the appellant should not be punished with a more severe punishment than the Court could award to the person for any of the two offences. In this case, minimum punishment under Section 7 is six months and the minimum punishment under Section 13(1)(d) is one year. If an offence falls under both Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and the Court wants to award only the minimum punishment, then the punishment would be one year as observed by the Apex Court in re: State represented by Inspector of Police, Pudukottai, T.N. vs. A. Parthiban, (2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 473. 13. Here in this case, the appellant has been facing the agony of trial since 1995. In other words, the incident is more than 13 years old. The ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to the minimum one. Accordingly, the sentence awarded under the charged offences is reduced to one year, while maintaining the fine as well as its default clause. 14. With this modification in the order of sentence, this appeal fails and is dismissed. The Registry is directed to transmit a certified copy of this judgment to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala for taking necessary steps to send the appellant to the prison to serve the remaining part of his sentence. Appeal dismissed.