(1.) THE petitioner is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the Trial Court convicting for an offence under Section 4 of the Prohibition of Dowry Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience) and sentenced him to undergo RI for six months, and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further RI of three months.
(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that complainant Naseem Bano was married with petitioner Salim and they resided together as husband and wife for some days. The complainant alleged that after the marriage Salim and his parents demanded dowry from the parents of Naseem Bano, though at the time of said marriage which took place on 9. 2. 1983, her father had gifted the nuptial gifts to the tune of Rs. 10,000/ -. The said amount was allegedly 5 to 7 thousand rupees. As per the allegation of Naseem Bano on 19. 1. 1984 she was driven out of the house for getting the amount of dowry from her father. On 21. 8. 1984, father of Naseem Bano pledged some ornaments and raised Rs. 1,000/- which were given to the petitioner Saleem. Even then, the demand of dowry was not abandoned by the petitioner Saleem, the husband of complainant Naseem Bano. In the result Naseem Bano was constrained to file a complaint with the police on 28. 1. 1985 which resulted in the trial in which Saleem, his father Chhammabhai and mother Begumbai were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and the sentence was passed against them as mentioned above.
(3.) THE appeal was preferred and while deciding the Criminal Appeal No. 53/ 87, IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dewas held that the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act, was spelledout and thus he maintained the order of conviction and sentence so far as that offence is concerned, by maintaining the sentence which was inflicted on petitioner only and that is also being challenged by this revision petition.