PANDURANG SHIVRAM KAWATHKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revisions arise out of the same incident of which the applicants were tried in one trial. The applicants were convicted for the offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). Applicant Maroti was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 300. 00 in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. Applicants Purushottam and Pandurang were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000. 00, in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 days. Anjanabai, who was accused No. 2 before the trial Court, was also held guilty for the offence under section 4 of the said Act and was sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs. 1000. 00, in default, simple Imprisonment for 2 days. All the applicants as also Anjanabai preferred appeal before the Sessions Court, Amravati, but their appeal was dismissed. The applicants now challenge the concurrent findings of two courts below by filing this revision. Accused Anjanabai has not filed any revision.

(2.) ARGUMENTS were heard. Shri Dubey, learned Advocate argued on behalf of Maroti and Purushottam; Shri Chandurkar, learned Advocate argued on behalf of applicant Pandurang and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued on behalf of the State.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate for applicants Maroti and Purushottam urged before me that merely making of a demand of dowry until and unless dowry is given or agreed to be given in terms of section 2 of the said Act does not make out any offence. Alternatively, it was argued that even assuming that demand for dowry is punishable, the prosecution has failed to make out the charge against the applicants inasmuch as all the witnesses being relatives of the complainant, and there is no independent corroboration from any independent witness. Thirdly, it has been argued that there is delay of 13 days in filing the First Information Report which has not been satisfactorily explained, which casts suspicion on the prosecution case. The learned Advocate for the applicants sought to produce legal notice dated 28-4-1998, which was sent by Maroti to the complainant which was not produced before the trial Court, and, according to learned Advocate for the said applicants, the complainant had admitted the receipt of the said notice in his cross-examination.