SATYARANI CHADDHA Vs. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by way of Public Interest Litigation. The second respondent, Subhash Chander Bhasin, was sought to be prosecuted under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The learned Judicial Magistrate having examined the complaint discharged the accused on the ground that the demand of the scooter made on March 15, 1979 is not dowry within the meaning of section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A revision was filed against the same in the High Court and the same was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. Having regard to the public importance of the question, not only the interested party but two others belonging to the social organisation have filed this appeal.

(2.) IT appears that two days before the marriage, a demand was made for a fridge, television and a scooter. Except scooter, other articles are appeared to have been given. The demand for the scooter continued subsequent to the marriage. The definition of dowry as it stood prior to amendment explains the meaning of dowry thus: