MALREDDY RAMACHANDRA REDDY Vs. C VANAJA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order, dated 2.8.2001, in Crl. R.P. No.15/1999 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, confirming the order passed by the learned II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Cuddapah, in Crl. M.P. No.4073/1998 in C.C. No.224/1995, dated 18.2.1999

(2.) Petitioner is an accused in C.C. No.224/1995. Chinna Chowk Police laid a charge-sheet against him, his parents and three sisters for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961, for short, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'. A single charge under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act was framed against petitioner and A2 After conclusion of trial and before judgment, the learned Magistrate framed separate charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act against petitioner and A2 and recalled P.Ws.l to 3 and cross-examined them. During their cross-examination, P.Ws.1 to 3 admitted that they had given Rs.1. lakh as dowry and presented gold jewels worth Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner and his father. At that stage, petitioner filed Crl M.P. No.4073/1998 before the Trial Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C, to implead P.Ws.1 to 4 as accused for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, to be tried along with the other accused in the case, since both the giver and taker of dowry are equally liable for punishment under the Act. The learned Magistrate dismissed that application against which petitioner filed Crl. R.P. No.15/ 1999 before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision holding that P.Ws.1 to 4 cannot be tried as accused in the same trial as they are protected under Section 7(3) of the Act. It is as against the order of dismissal of the revision, A1 filed the present petition to quash the said order.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that under Section 319 Cr.P.C., if it appears to the Court from the evidence that any person not being an accused has committed an offence, such person can be tried together with the accused, and, therefore, on the voluntary evidence given by the witnesses, the Court can issue process against them and the bar under Section 7(3) of the Act will apply only to statements made by the person aggrieved by the offence and will not apply to the evidence given by the witnesses, as the words "statements" and "evidence" are not synonyms and hence the petition may be allowed. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that concurrent findings of the Courts below cannot be interfered with, that under Section 7(3) of the Act, the "statement" includes the evidence given by the witnesses and if they are arrayed as accused, they have to give evidence against themselves which is not permissible under law and hence the petition should be dismissed.