N. B. ASTHANA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 4. 8. 93 passed by the Chief Judicial magistrate; Gorakhpur in Criminal Case No. 7505 for 1992 dismissing the revisionist application challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to try the complaint. The complaint was filed under section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 406 IPC with the allegations that the marriage of the complainant was settled with Dr. Aijas-uddin. Accused No. 2 is the brother of accused No. 1 Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are the father and mother of accused No. 1. It was further said that during negotiations of marriage all the accused made several demands of dowry as consideration for marriage. Under compulsion the parents of the complainant fulfil their all demands. A sum of Rs. 90,886/-was spent in the marriage. Several parents valuable articles and ornaments were given in consideration of the marriage. The marriage took place on 28-4-92. The complainant sent to reside with the accused at Varanasi and lived there upto 3-5-92. Accused made further demand of Rupees. One lac. She showed her inability to bring this amount from her parents whereupon she was tortured physically and mentally treated cruelty and finally on 2. 5. 92 she was divorced. She was deprived of all the marriage presents and was turned out of the house only with the clothes which she was wearing. ( 2 ) THE accused moved an application stating that from a perusal of Para 8 of the complaint it is clear that whatever was demanded by the accused at Varanasi and, therefore Chief Judicial magistrate, Gorakhpur had no jurisdiction to try the case. It was also stated that in so far as section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned the Courts at Varanasi would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. ( 3 ) THE Chief Judicial Magistrate was of the opinion that marriage presents were given at gorakhpur where the marriage took place and therefore, the Courts at Gorakhpur would have jurisdiction in so far as the return of the marriage presents etc. was concerned. He was of the opinion that the divorce was made at Varanasi and the sum of Rs. was concerned. He was of the opinion that the divorce was made at Varanasi and the sum of Rs. One lac was demanded at varanasi but since the marriage took place at Gorakhpur and marriage presents were also given there the Courts at Gorakhpur would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The result was that the application was dismissed. Aggrieved by it the accused have come to this Court. ( 4 ) RELIANCE on behalf of the opposite party has been placed upon Hansraj, Chaudhary v. Smt. Sarita, 1992 U. P. Criminal Rulings 417. In that case complaint for offences punishable under sections 498a, 406, 520/34 IPC was filed at Jhansi. The marriage between the parties took place at Jhansi. The marriage presents were also given at Jhansi. In that case, it was alleged that she was treated with cruelty by her husband at the place of her husband at Madhya Pradesh. It was held by this Court that in view of Section 177, 181 (4) and 387 Cr. P. C. complaint for offence under Section 406 IPC could have been filed at Jhansi but not the complaint under Section 498a ipc. In so far as the offence under Section 406 was concerned it was held that the articles were handed over to the accused at Jhansi. It is one of the basic principles of law that the property which is given in the entrustment, is liable to be returned at the place at which it was given in entrustment. Thus there can be no dispute that the offence under Section 406 IPC was triable at jhansi and the C. J. M. Jhansi had territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint so far as it related to the offence under Section 406 I. P. C. In the instant case the presents are said to have been given to the accused at Gorakhpur. These marriage presents are said to have been given for the complainant. Accused were, therefore, under obligation to return those marriage presents at gorakhpur. The Courts at Gorakhpur would have therefore, jurisdiction to try the complaint in so far as Section 406 IPC was concerned. Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act relates to the return of dowry given for the benefit of the wife of her heirs. Accused were, therefore, under obligation to return those marriage presents at gorakhpur. The Courts at Gorakhpur would have therefore, jurisdiction to try the complaint in so far as Section 406 IPC was concerned. Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act relates to the return of dowry given for the benefit of the wife of her heirs. Under this Section also the persons who received dowry inconnection with whose marriage it was given are liable to hand it over to the woman concerned. Since the dowry was received at Gorakhpur and in terms of Section 181 (4) of the Cr. P. C. the dowry was to be returned at Gorakhpur. I am of the view that the Court of Gorakhpur had jurisdiction to try the case under Dowry Prohibition Act as well. In view of the above the revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed. The stay order passed on 11. 11. 93 is vacated. .