RAJENDRA MAHAJAN, J.

1. Since both the aforesaid criminal appeals have arisen out of the common impugned judgment dated 20.11.2006 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the 'Act') Hoshangabad in Special Case No. 06 of 2004, titled State of M.P. v. Kumari Archana Nagar and another, they are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Vide the impugned judgment, appellant Archana stood convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of the Act and sentenced there under to suffer on first count rigorous imprisonment (for short the R.I.) for a term of 2 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousands) in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 6 months and second count R.I. for a term of 2 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousands) in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 6 months. However, the substantive jail sentences in the aforesaid Sections are directed to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved thereby, appellant Archana has filed the appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

3. Vide the impugned judgment, respondent Maluk Chand stood acquitted of the charge under Section 12 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the appellant S.P.E. Lokayukt has filed an appeal under Section 378 (1) of the Cr.P.C.

4. For convenience, in this judgment hereinafter appellant Archana and respondent Maluk Chand shall be referred to as accused Archana and acquitted accused Maluk Chand respectively.

5. The prosecution case is given in brief below:

"(5.1) On 05.09.2003, complainant Yaswant Singh @ Lallu Singh (PW-10) made a complaint Ex. P-18 to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Bhopal, Division Bhopal (for short the S.P.) stating that he is a permanent resident of village Dolriya and he is a farmer-cum-businessman by occupation. He does business of selling hardware in village Dolriya. On 15.08.2003 at Dev Isthan known as Bhangi Baba situated near village Dolriya (for short the place), he was talking to Gomti Bai (PW-4), a woman of his acquittance. At that time, accused Archana, the S.H.O. of Police Station Dolriya with one Constable, Bahadur Singh (not examined) came there on a motorcycle. She asked him as to why he was standing with her. She took them to the Police Station Dolriya (for short the Police Station). Thereafter, she made him sit in her government residence, which is on the campus of the police station. There, she got a letter written by him forcing him to admit that he had sexual intercourse with Gomti Bai several times in the past and he had also intercourse with her today. Later, she had gone to the police station. She came back after some time there from and told him that Gomti Bai has made a written complaint against him that he had raped her. She told him that if he wanted to avoid prosecution on her report, he had to pay her Rs. 20,000/-, otherwise she would put him behind the bars. He told her that there was no such incident as she said. He did not want to get himself entangled in an embarrassing situation and wanted to get out of it. He, therefore, offered her Rs. 1,000/- to 2,000/-. But she had not agreed upon the aforesaid money and demanded from him Rs. 7,000/- within 2 to 4 days. She also took his mobile phone of Nokiya company model No. 2100 saying that she would return it after getting Rs. 7,000/- from him. Two days later, Constable, Bahadur Singh came to his shop and told him that accused Archana had called him. On the same day, he met her at her government residence. She told him that he had not paid her money so far. He replied that he had no money to give her. However, he would arrange the money in a week's time. She told him in a threatening tone that she would send him in jail upon the report of Gomti Bai. On 03.09.2003, she met him at a Petrol Pump. There, she told him that she had not so far received the money. She again threatened to put h