JAMALUDDIN KHAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application has been directed against the order dated 8th December, 1998 passed by 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Sasaram in Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 1996, whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners who were convicted in G.R. Case No. 3209 of 1987 under Section 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and were also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/ - each or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

(2.) THE relevant facts concerning this revision application are that the complainant filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, against the petitioners alleging therein that her daughter Rashida Khatoon was married to Md. Sarsar Ahmad (Petitioner No. 2) on 23.6.1986 and after marriage the petitioner No. 2 gave a list of articles to the complainant as dowry and gave threats that if the articles as per the list are not given to him, the consequences will be worse. The petitioner No. 2 used to write threatening letters to his mother -in -law for the fulfilment of the demand of dowry made by him. Ultimately, the demand was not fulfilled. The complainant sent his son to bring her daughter from her in -laws place and when her daughter came home she narrated that she used to be assaulted and tortured in various ways for fulfilment of the demand of dowry. The complainant having failed in her attempt to bring normalcy, filed a complaint case in the Court which was referred to the police for investigation and the police submitted charge -sheet under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as also under Section 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court framed charge against the petitioners under the aforesaid counts but the trial Court acquitted the petitioners of the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on technical ground because no sanction for prosecution was proved by the prosecution. Nevertheless, the petitioners were convicted under Section 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced in the manner as stated above.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that the alleged torture/assault etc. took place at Sayaldih which is in the district of Hazaribagh but the complaint was filed at Sasaram and Sasaram Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case. I am of the view that this submission has also got no force in it because of the fact that the part of the offence took place in the district of Hazaribagh and the offence continued till the Rashida Khatoon went to her mother 'splace situated in the jurisdiction of Rohtas district. In the case of this nature, I am of the view that the courts of both the places will have jurisdiction to try the case.