ORDER 1. The deceased Shakuntala was married to Respondent 1 on 22-4-1987. Respondent 2 is sister of Respondent 1. The deceased Shakuntala, according to the case of the prosecution, committed suicide in view of the demand of dowry by the respondents. The respondents were charged for the offence under Section 304- B of the Penal Code, 1860. 2. The Assistant Sessions Judge found them guilty of the charge under Section 304- B and sentenced the respondents for rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each. In appeal the conviction and sentence of the respondents was set aside by Additional Sessions Judge. The judgment of the acquittal passed by Additional Sessions Judge was challenged by the State before the High• Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1025 of 1993. It was also challenged by the complainant in Criminal RC No. 540 of 1993. 3. By the impugned judgment the appeal and the revision were dismissed by the High Court. The State is in appeal on grant of leave. 4. The High Court in its brief order principally held that there was no agreement for payment of dowry. It is only harassment to bring more dowry after many years of marriage. The question of fixation of dowry paid or payable either before the marriage, at the time of marriage or after the marriage did not arise. In this view, the High Court held that Section 304-B was not applicable and the respondents were rightly acquitted by the Court of Session. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a judgment of this a Court in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana1. This Court on consideration of the provision of Section 304-B and the relevant case law has held that Section 304-B IPC makes "demand of dowry" itself punishable. Demand neither conceives nor would conceive of any agreement. If for convicting any offender, agreement for dowry is to be proved, hardly any offenders would come under the clutches of law. When Section 304-B refers to. "demand of dowry", it refers to the demand of property or valuable security as referred to in the definition of "dowry" under the 1961 Act. 5. In this view, the judgment of the High Court holding that in absence of agreement for demand of dowry Section 304-B is not applicable, cannot be sustained. When Section 304-B refers to. "demand of dowry", it refers to the demand of property or valuable security as referred to in the definition of "dowry" under the 1961 Act. 5. In this view, the judgment of the High Court holding that in absence of agreement for demand of dowry Section 304-B is not applicable, cannot be sustained. It appears that in view of the High Court's opinion on the absence of such an agreement, it did not as such examine the evidence to adjudicate whether there was any demand of dowry or not except making a passing reference to PW 1, PW 2 and PW 6. 6. In this state of affairs we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remit Criminal Appeal No. 1025 of 1993 and Criminal RC No. 540 of 1993 to the High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law. We request the High Court to expeditiously decide these matters. Without d expressing any opinion on merits, we allow the appeals on the above terms.