Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 141 (MAD)

K. Ramalingam, In re. v. .

1988-03-09

P.K.SETHURAMAN

body1988
ORDER This revision is against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem in Crl.M.P. No.299 of 1987 in C.C. No.51 of 1987 which was charge-sheeted by the respondent herein against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Sec.4(1) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as amended by Act 63 of 1984. The wife of the petitioner, namely, Kokila, appears to have sent a petition to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and it seems to have been sent to the Superintendent of Police, Salem, which again had been forwarded to the Shewapet Police Station and thereafter the case has been registered on the file of the Shewapet Police Station in Crime No.344 of 1986. According to the First Information Report, the marriage between the petitioner and his wife Kokila took place on 12.2.1982 and her husband K.Ramalingam P.C.No. 2235, was working in the very same Shewapet Police Station and at the time of the marriage, she was given jewels worth 4 1/2 sovereigns and she became pregnant and went to her parent's house and gave birth to a female child. When she came to her parent's house, her husband also came there and resided with them for about 8 months and as her parents were suffering, she wanted her husband to take her back to his house and her husband beat her and wanted four sovereigns more and also a cash of Rs.5,000. So saying, the petitioner took away the four sovereigns chain which had been given already and did not at all come back to the house. 2. Investigation had been done and ultimately the case has been charge-sheeted. According to the charge-sheet, the petitioner is shown to have demanded a dowry of Rs.5,000 in the month of July, 1983. During the relevant time, the Act that was in force was the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Act 28 of 1961). Sec.4 of that Act dealt with penalty and the penalty prescribed thereunder was imprisonment extending upto six months or with (fine extending)…. to Rs.5,000 or with both. During the relevant time, the Act that was in force was the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Act 28 of 1961). Sec.4 of that Act dealt with penalty and the penalty prescribed thereunder was imprisonment extending upto six months or with (fine extending)…. to Rs.5,000 or with both. Under the proviso to Sec.4, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under that section except with the previous sanction of the State Government or of such officer as the State Government may by general or special order, specify in that behalf and under Sec.7(b) of that Act, no Court shall take cognizance of any such offence except on a complaint made within one year from the date of the offence and under Sec.8 of that Act, offences under that Act were non-cognizable, bailable and non-compoundable. The Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 was amended under Act 63 of 1984 and under the amended Act, penalty for demanding dowry was imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extent to Rs.10,000. But the amended Act, came into force only on 2.10.1985. In the year 1986 by Act 43 of 1986, the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, was amended. But I do not find any amendment with regard to Sec.4 of the original Act. The petitioner is shown to have filed the petition in M.P. No. 299 of 1987 contending that the occurrence of demanding dowry is shown to have taken place in July, 1983, where as the charge-sheet has been filed in the year l987 and under Sec.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the punishment, as it stood then prior to the amendment by the 1984 Act was only six months, and, therefore, the filing of the chargesheet was beyond time and hence the charge has to be quashed. But the learned Magistrate in his order has stated that the contravention of Sec.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act prescribes punishment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to Rs.15,000 provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months. As pointed out earlier, even under the amendment Act 63 of 1984, penalty for demanding dowry under Sec.4 is stated to be not less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to Rs.10,000 and it is not as stated by the learned Magistrate in his order. 3. In Act 43 of 1986, with regard to Sec.3 of the Principal Act, which related to receiving and giving dowry, instead of the words ‘six months, but which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend to Rs.10,000 or the amount of the value of such dowry whichever is more’ the words five years and with fine which shall not be less than Rs.15,000 or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more, shall be substituted and in the proviso for the words ‘six months’ the words ‘five years’ shall be substituted. Having regard to the fact that the alleged occurrence took place in the month of July, 1983 and the punishment then was only six months and also having regard to Sec.7(b) of the Act prescribing the period for laying the complaint within one year from the date of the offence, I feel that the contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner has to be accepted. Even otherwise, I have gone through the records proposed to be relied upon by the prosecution in the case and I am quite convinced that the contention put forward by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings has to be accepted. Accordingly, this criminal revision case has to be allowed setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 4. In the result, this criminal revision case is allowed and the object with regard to the maintainability of the charge is upheld and the petitioner is directed to be discharged. B.S. ----- Petition allowed.