Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. These two appeals have been preferred by the two appellants individually under Section 374 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to assail the common judgment dated 21.03.2009 and order of sentence dated 23.03.2009 passed by Learned Special Judge, in CC No. 30/2003 arising out of F.I.R No. RC-DAI-2002(A)-0035 under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). Appellant Girwar Singh – the appellant in Crl.A. 263/2009 (hereinafter referred as ‘Appellant No. 1’), was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (‘R.I.’) for one year with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment (‘S.I.’) for 7 days for offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC. He was further sentenced under Section 7 of the PC Act to undergo R.I. for a period of two and a half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for 15 days. He was sentenced to R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for 15 days for offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Appellant, Lala Ram – the appellant in Crl.A. 279/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellant No. 2’), was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for 7 days for offences punishable under Sections 120-B IPC. He was further sentenced under Section 7 of the PC Act to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for 15 days. He was sentenced to R.I. for two and a half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for 15 days for offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. All the sentences of appellant no. 1 and appellant no. 2 were directed to run concurrently.

2. The facts in both the appeals arise out of the same FIR (Ex. PW-14/A) dated 03.06.2002. Appellant no. 1 Girwar Singh was a Senior Audit Officer, and appellant no. 2 Lala Ram was an Assistant Audit Officer working in the Sales Tax department.

3. The facts as enumerated in the charge-sheet are that the prosecution/C.B.I. registered the case on 03.06.2002 on the basis of the written complaint of Sh. Rajpal Katyal (PW-3), Proprietor, M/s. Kailash Engineers (hereinafter referred to as ‘Firm’). He inter alia stated that he was having a business of spare parts of diesel generator sets and the firm was registered with Delhi Sales Tax Department. An audit party of Accountant General of Audit, Delhi was doing audit of Sales Tax Department from 30.04.2002 to 27.05.2002. Complete folder of M/s. Kailash Engineers was handed over to Audit Party on 15.05.2002. On 23.05.2002, his Accountant Sachin Arora was called by Audit Branch of Sales Tax Department, where he met appellant no. 2, Assistant Audit Officer, who asked Sachin Arora (PW-5) to produce some documents for the year 1996-97 and 1997-98. Appellant No. 2 further informed that the purchase orders have not been enclosed with “C” forms, and ST-I form was not enclosed with the return for the year 1997-98. On 27.05.2002, Rajpal Katyal sent the documents through Sachin Arora but appellant no. 2 demanded Rs. 15,000/- for accepting the documents and stated that he would, otherwise, raise audit objections.

Thereafter, on 30.05.2002, Rajpal Katyal again sent Sachin Arora to Sales Tax Office to enquire the purpose of demand of money. After visiting Sales Tax office, appellant no. 2 introduced Sachin to appellant no. 1, Senior Audit Officer, who told that they have studied the case and found that one ST-I Form in return of 1997-98 was deficient, and a demand of Rs. 6 lacs could be raised on that ground, but the matter could be closed if Rs. 40,000/- are paid – and not