INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. There are three appellants before this Court. Appellant Satish Kumar Bhalla is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 03.02.2007 and 05.02.2007 respectively wherein he had been convicted for charges under Sections 7 read with 13 (2) and 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) and had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 3½ years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the said Act. For the second offence, the convict had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 9 months. On the same day on the application of Satish Kumar Bhalla filed under Section 319 of the Cr.PC, an order had been passed for summoning of accused Kailash Nath and Ramesh. This was in view of the evidence which had emanated in the version of the complainant (PW-6). Supplementary challan against Kailash Nath and Ramesh had been filed. After the completion of trial, the aforenoted accused were also convicte