JUDGMENT The appellant-Debabrat Mukherjee was put on trial to face charges under Section 7 as well as under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation of demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.1000/-from complainant-Kismat Kumar Singh, P.W. 2. Learned trial court having found the appellant guilty for the said charges sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two and half years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for twenty days. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days. Both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Stall was settled at railway platform at Ranchi Railway Station to one Smt. Kalawati Devi which was being run in the name and style as M/s South Indian Stall by the complainant-Kismat Kumar Singh, P.W. 2, as Manager, nephew of Smt. Kalawati Devi. The appellant being posted as Station Manager of Ranchi Railway Station used to put demand of Rs.1000/-every month from complainant-Kismat Kumar Singh, P.W. 2, but he never obliged him and as such, he was being abused and threatened oftenly. Further case of the prosecution is that on 18.7.2005, the appellant came to his Stall and asked for Rs.1000/-but the complainant-Kismat Kumar Singh, P.W. 2, refused to oblige him. However, the complainant-Kismat Kumar Singh, P.W. 2, was asked to meet the appellant at his residence on the next day i.e. on 19.7.2005. On the next day, when the complainant-Kismat Kumar Singh, P.W. 2, came to the quarters of the appellant, he told the complainant that if he will not pay money, he would get his license cancelled by making complaint that the Stall is being kept untidy and he never cares for its cleanliness. Thereafter complainant-Kismat Kumar Singh, P.W. 2, made written complaint (Ext. 4) before the S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi on 19.7.2005 who endorsed the matter to one B.N. Roy, Inspector of C.B.I., P.W. 1, for verification of the allegation made in the complaint. Thereafter complainant-Kismat Kumar Singh, P.W. 2, made written complaint (Ext. 4) before the S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi on 19.7.2005 who endorsed the matter to one B.N. Roy, Inspector of C.B.I., P.W. 1, for verification of the allegation made in the complaint. On getting the order, P.W. 1 came to the quarters of the appellant along with the complainant- P.W. 2. On calling by P.W. 2, the appellant came to Varanda of his quarters where complainant-Kismat Kumar Singh, P.W. 2 introduced P.W. 1 as his contractor. When P.W. 2 told the appellant that he will be going to his village home for a fortnight, the appellant asked him to give Rs.1000/-by evening in his office and also said that if he will go on making payment, he will never make any complaint. On getting allegation to be true, P.W. 1 submitted verification report (Ext. 1) to the S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi and thereafter a case was registered as R.C. Case No. 9(A) of 2005 A.H.D. and a formal FIR (Ext. 7) was drawn under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereupon, Bir Kuwar Singh, P.W. 7, was entrusted with the investigation, who constituted a team consisting of himself and other police officials including Basant Lal, P.W. 3, Binod Prasad Sharma, P.W. 4, who were summoned from Khadi Gram Udyog where P.W. 4 was working as Supervisor and P.W. 3 was working as Assistant Lecturer. Thereafter pre-trap exercises were undertaken whereby ten currency notes each of the denomination of Rs.100/-produced by the complainant were treated with the phenolphthalein powder and were given back to the complainant after its numbers were noted in the pre-trap memorandum (Ext. 8) with the instruction to him as well as to the witnesses particularly P.Ws. 3 and 4 to hand over the same to the appellant only when he makes demand and then to convey it by giving signal to the members of the trap team. Thereafter, the team led by P.W. 7 left for Ranchi Railway Station where they reached at 5:15 p.m. and the complainant was again reminded to hand over the money only when the demand is made by the appellant. Thereafter, the team led by P.W. 7 left for Ranchi Railway Station where they reached at 5:15 p.m. and the complainant was again reminded to hand over the money only when the demand is made by the appellant. Thereafter, the complainant, P.W. 2, and Basant Lal, P.W. 3, entered into the chambers of the appellant situated at Platform No. 1 where they found the appellant present over there but the appellant on seeing them immediately came outside of the chambers where he was greeted by the appellant and thereafter the complainant, on being asked to give money, handed over Rs.1000/-which the appellant accepted by his right hand and took it in the left hand and while he was trying to keep it in his pocket, P.W. 7 challenged him and upon it the appellant threw the money (Ext. VI to VI/9) on the platform. Immediately thereafter the appellant was caught hold of by his wrist and the money was collected by P.Ws. 4 and 7 which on verification was found to be of the same numbers which had been given after phenolphthalein treatment to the complainant, P.W. 2, at the time of pre-trap exercises. Thereafter, phenolphthalein test was undertaken whereby both the hands of the appellant were dipped separately in solution kept in the containers upon which it turned to pink which was collected in the containers separately. In course of trial, bottle containing right hand wash was proved to be Ext. III , whereas container containing left hand wash was proved to be Ext. IV. 3. Thereafter post-trap, memorandum (Ext. 9) was prepared over which the witnesses put their signatures and the appellant was arrested. Thereupon, on search being made of the office of the appellant, one file relating to the settlement of M/s South Indian Stall including one Authority Letter (Ext. 13) .authorizing the appellant to run the Stall was also seized. P.W. 7 also took the statement of the witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 3 and 4. Thereafter, further investigation was taken up by Ajay Kumar Jha, P.W. 9, who sent the report of each sample of the hand wash to the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboraory, Calcutta where it was examined by Bimal Chandra Purkait, P.W. 8, who after its examination submitted its report (Ext. 11) under his forwarding Letter (Ext. 17). 4. The Investigating Officer on getting sanctioned order (Ext. 11) under his forwarding Letter (Ext. 17). 4. The Investigating Officer on getting sanctioned order (Ext. 15) by the Competent Authority for prosecution submitted charge-sheet under Section 7 as well as under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the appellant upon which cognizance of the said offences was taken. Subsequently, when the charges were framed, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. 6. After closure of the prosecution case, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, which he simply denied. Learned trial court on finding the testimony of the witnesses to be true recorded the order of conviction and sentence as aforesaid. Being aggrieved with the said judgment, this appeal has been preferred. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the complainant in course of cross-examination has categorically said that the demand of illegal gratification had never been made by the appellant and in that view of the matter, entire case of the prosecution gets demolished, but still learned trial court has recorded the order of conviction and sentence which is quite illegal. It was also submitted that admittedly the tainted money had never been recovered from the possession of the appellant, rather the same is said to have been recovered from the Platform where number of persons were present but not a single independent witness has been examined and under this situation, the trial court should not have accepted the case of the prosecution, as false implication of the appellant in the facts and circumstances, cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel further submits that Smt. Kalawati Devi to whom the said Stall is said to have been settled has never been examined and as per the evidence of P.W. 11, there had been no authorization in favour of the complainant, P.W. 2, and as such, the question of running Stall by the complainant and consequently putting demand by the appellant of illegal gratification never does arise, but the trial court did not consider this aspect of the matter in right perspective and hence the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is fit to be set aside. 8. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I., however, submits that this is the case where the C.B.I. has been able to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubts to the effect that on demand of illegal gratification being made by the appellant, the complainant made complaint before the S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi and the matter on being verified found to be true and thereafter the appellant while accepting money was trapped and as such the trial court has rightly passed the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, I do find that according to the complainant, P.W. 2, the Stall, named as M/s South Indian Stall settled to Smt. Kalawati Devi, was being run by him and this assertion of P.W. 2 gets corroboration from an Authority Letter (Ext. 13) said to have been issued by Smt. Kalawati Devi and as such, there appears to be no substance in the submission that the appellant had no authority to run the said Stall. Further, it appears that on 18.7.2005 when the complainant, P.W. 2, was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/-under threat held out by the appellant that if the money is not paid, the appellant would get the settlement cancelled and if the money is paid, he will not be making any complaint and then the appellant asked the complainant, P.W. 2, to pay money on the next day. Thereupon a case was lodged before the C.B.I. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the very basis of the case is imaginary, as the appellant being bereft of any power of imposing fine or cancelling the license is not expected to put forth demand of money on the plea of getting it cancelled. This submission, in the facts and circumstances of the case, never cuts much ice, as according to the Commercial Inspector, South Eastern Railway, Ranchi, P.W. 6, D.R.M. had earlier made inspection of the Stall and even had imposed fine and that D.R.M. or his Subordinate Officer is quite competent to make inspection of the Station. This witness by referring certain clauses of Railway Commercial Manual has gone to say that the Station Superintendent (Station Manager) is quite competent to make inspection of the Stall. This witness by referring certain clauses of Railway Commercial Manual has gone to say that the Station Superintendent (Station Manager) is quite competent to make inspection of the Stall. Under this situation, I do not find any substance in the submission that the appellant had nothing to do with the matter of inspection of the Stall or making any complaint regarding his cleanliness to the Higher Officer. 11. Going further in the matter, I do find that when the complaint was lodged before the S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi, he got the allegation verified from P.W. 1. According to P.W. 1, when he along with the complainant, P.W. 2, went to the residence of the appellant, the appellant asked the complainant to make payment of Rs.1000/-. Thereafter, as per the testimonies of P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 7, trap team was constituted consisting of two independent witnesses, P.Ws. 3 and 4 as well as the complainant who had been instructed to give money to the appellant only when the demand is made and as per the plan, when the complainant along with P.W. 3 entered into the chambers of the appellant, the appellant on seeing the complainant came out of his chambers to the platform where he asked for money and upon it the currency notes, which had been treated with phenolphthalein powder, had been handed over to the appellant who accepted it from his right hand and then took it in the left hand for keeping it on the pocket but before putting it in the pocket, P.W. 7 challenged him and then the appellant threw the money on the platform which was collected by Binod Prasad Sharma, P.W. 4. P.W. 4 though in his testimony has stated that it was Basant Lal, P.W. 3, who picked up the money but at the same time, P.W. 3 and P.W. 7 have testified that it was the Binod Prasad Sharma who had picked up the money but this minor contradiction never affects the trustworthiness of the witnesses, as P.W. 3 has testified that he helped Binod Prasad Sharma in picking up money. Similar is the evidence of P.W. 7. Similar is the evidence of P.W. 7. Moreover, the witnesses are quite consistent on the points that after the money was collected, both the hands of the appellant were subjected to phenolphthalein test and during test solution kept in containers turned to pink suggesting that the appellant had accepted money before throwing it on the platform. Report (Ext. III) of the expert also corroborates the case of the prosecution. 12. Thus, under the circumstances, assertion made by the complainant, P.W. 2, in the cross-examination that the appellant had never put forth any demand is not worth acceptable in view of his statement as testified in his examination-in-chief that the demand had been made by the appellant. That apart, the circumstances, which were enumerated hereinabove, do clearly indicate that the appellant had put forth demand for illegal gratification and while accepting illegal gratification, he was trapped by the team constituted for that purpose. Thus, there does not appear to be any reason to discard the testimony of the witnesses who testified on the point of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Therefore, learned trial court seems to be absolutely justified in convicting the appellant for the offences under Section 7 as well as under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, though both the offences seem to have been committed in single transaction, but still in view of a decision rendered in the case of State represented by Inspector of Police, Pudukottai, T.N. Vs. A. Parthiban reported in (2007) 1 S.C.C.(Cri) 520, one can be convicted for the offence under Section 7 as well as under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act even if the act was committed in single transaction. It has been held that every acceptance of illegal gratification, whether preceded by a demand or not, would be covered by Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. But if 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 Prevention of Corruption Act. However, it has been held that as the offence is one which falls under two different sections providing different punishments, the offender should not be punished with a more severe punishment than the court could award to the person for any one of the two offences. However, it has been held that as the offence is one which falls under two different sections providing different punishments, the offender should not be punished with a more severe punishment than the court could award to the person for any one of the two offences. It be noticed that the minimum punishment under Section 7 is six months and the minimum punishment under Section 13(1)(d) is one year. Keeping in view the minimum sentence prescribed under the aforesaid provision and also the testimony of P.W. 5, Sr. Divisional Operation Officer that the service record of the appellant is faultless and that he never received any complaint against him, it would be appropriate for the ends of justice to sentence him for six months for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to one year for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act without any modification with respect to sentence of fine imposed by the trial court for the said offences. 13. Accordingly, with the modification on the point of sentence, this appeal stands dismissed.