Judgment : The above revision is directed against the order of acquittal dated 21. 1995 in C.C.No.125 of 1993 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode acquitting the respondents 1 to 3, for the offence punishable under Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sec.498-A read with Sec.34, I.P.C. 2. The respondents 1 to 3 were facing a trial as accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.125 of 1993,on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode for the offence punishable under Sec.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sec.498-A read with Sec.34, I.P.C. with regard to an alleged demand of dowry or twenty sovereign jewels and a sum of Rs.20,000 cash, from the revision petitioner herein and also caused cruelty to the petitioner for not giving the said dowry. 3. When the above revision was taken up for hearing on 211. 1997, both the petitioner and the respondents proposed to have a settlement and therefore, I was obliged to pass an order dated 211. 1997, which reads as follows: “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and also the learned Government Advocate appearing for the fourth respondent. Both the petitioner and the first respondent with three daughters were present in the court. 2. Even though the above revision is directed against the order dated 21. 1995 in C.C.No.125 of 1993 arising under the Dowry Prohibition Act, during the course of hearing at the initiation of the learned counsel for both sides, a settlement and compromise was mooted. In pursuant to the proposal of compromise and settlement, it is agreed between the parties that the petitioner and the first respondent shall live together at No. 52/ 53, 7th Street, Pazhanipuram, Bhavani Post, Erode District, for a minimum period of three months together with their children. 3. The first respondent, it is required, is permitted to go to his lands for his agricultural operation, twice in a week and on other days, he shall report to the nearest police station. Since the petitioner apprehends danger to the life of her children, 1 direct the woman police at Bhavani Police Station, to visit the place of residence thrice a day and maintain a record to that effect and submit a report to this Court fortnightly through the learned Government Advocate. 4. Since the petitioner apprehends danger to the life of her children, 1 direct the woman police at Bhavani Police Station, to visit the place of residence thrice a day and maintain a record to that effect and submit a report to this Court fortnightly through the learned Government Advocate. 4. At the request of the first respondent, the above order shall take effect from 1st December, 1997. 5. Communicate the order to the local police station. 6. Officer is directed to post the matter once in 15 days for reporting.” 4. It was reported by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent is not interested for living peacefully with the petitioner and therefore, I am obliged to hear the revision itself and pass the following order: 5.The petitioner complains that the first respondent demanded dowry of twenty sovereigns of jewels and a sum of rupees twenty thousand cash and also further developed illegal intimacy with another lady. Since the petitioner could not pay the same, she was further subjected to cruelty and harassment by the first respondent. 6. Seven witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 7 and two documents were marked as Exs.P-1 and P-2, on behalf of the prosecution. On the other hand, two documents were marked as Exs.D-1 and D-2, on behalf of the respondents, in their defence. It is suffix to mention that P.W.1 was the complainant herself, P.Ws.2 and 3 are her mother and father respectively, P.W.4 is the doctor who treated the petitioner for the injuries caused by the first respondent, through whom the extract from the accident register dated 112. 1992 was marked as Ex.P-2 and P.Ws.5 and 6 were panchayatdars. 7. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode by his order dated 21. 1995 in C.C.No.125 of 1993. in the light of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 and Exs.P-1 and P-2, acquitted the respondents 1 to 3, merely on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that the respondents 1 to 3 demanded dowry from the petitioner, from the said charges. Hence, the above revision. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner. While challenging the said order of acquittal dated 211. 1995 on many grounds, restricts his arguments only on the ground that the court below has erred in fixing the burden of proof under prosecution to prove that the respondents 1 to 3 had demanded dowry. Hence, the above revision. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner. While challenging the said order of acquittal dated 211. 1995 on many grounds, restricts his arguments only on the ground that the court below has erred in fixing the burden of proof under prosecution to prove that the respondents 1 to 3 had demanded dowry. 9.Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, reiterates the reasons given by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode, for acquitting the respondents 1 to 3, and is not in a position to satisfy the court that the respondents 1 to 3 have not committed an offence under Secs.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 10. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 11. Sec.8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act reads as follows: “Burden of proof in certain cases: Where any person is prosecuted for taking or abetting the taking of any dowry under Sec.3, or the demanding of dowry under Sec.4, the burden of proving that he had not committed an offence under those sections shall be on him.” 12. It is not in dispute that the complaint against the respondents are for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A read with Sec. 34, I.P.C. as well as for the offence punishable under Sec.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as per Sec.8-A the burden lies heavily on the respondents 1 to 3 to prove that they had not committed an offence under Sec.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 13. Since the learned Judicial Magistrate erroneously shifted the burden on the prosecution and acquitted the respondents 1 to 3 on the ground that the prosecution had filed to prove that the respondents 1 to 3 demanded dowry from the petitioner, I am obliged to interfere with the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode, dated 21. 1995 in C.C.No.125 of 1993 and therefore the same is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode, for a fresh trial with a direction to dispose of the matter, in the light of Sec.8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act and to pass appropriate orders within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. In the result, revision is allowed with the direction stated above. No costs.