JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This revision application is directed against the judgment of two Courts below, whereby the petitioners have been found guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and, accordingly, they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code whereas they have been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of six months for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also to pay a find of Rs. 2,000/- (Two thousand) each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for three months. 3. The petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the informant (victim) and petitioner No. 2 is her father in law. 4. The prosecution case, in short, is that Saira Khatoon was married to petitioner No. 1, Safruddin in the year 1987 according to Muslim customs and rites. After passing some time of the marriage, her husband Safruddin started pressurizing her for dowry and asked her to bring money from her parents. Thereafter Rs. 15,000/- was paid to her husband for doing business by the father of the informant. Subsequently, he demanded more money and when the said demand was not fulfilled, the petitioner No. 2 sold the ornaments of the informant and sent her to her parent's house. It is further alleged that the accused persons tried to hang the informant with rope. She was also assaulted and they also tried to take her life by burning her. The husband also solemnized his marriage with another girl and that was his 4th marriage. 5. Altogether five witnesses have been examined in support of the charges framed against the accused persons. 6. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners as already stated above. 7. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the said judgment of the trial Court, was also dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. 8. 6. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners as already stated above. 7. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the said judgment of the trial Court, was also dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the evidence adduced by the prosecution itself it appears that the money was given by the parent of the informant to the petitioner-husband for doing business and, therefore, the same cannot come under the definition of dowry and, therefore, the conviction of the petitioners for the offence under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also took me to the allegations made in the FIR and also to the evidence of the informant in order to substantiate his submission. 9. But from the allegations made in the FIR as well as from the deposition of the witnesses, I find that the specific evidence has come against the petitioners that they were demanding dowry for doing business and she was not only compelled to bring money from her parent, but she was also tortured and, therefore, I am unable to accept the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the money, which was given to the petitioners, will not come under the definition of dowry. Accordingly, such submission is rejected. 10. From the judgment of the appellate Court also I find that he has dealt with the evidence on record in detail and then on consideration of the materials available therein, dismissed the appeal. 11. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any infirmity in the judgment so as to call for any interference by this Court in Revisional jurisdiction. However, he contended that the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1993 and since then more than 14 years have already elapsed and the petitioners have undergone ordeal of protracted trial for a pretty long time and, therefore, considering the nature of allegation, a sympathetic consideration be made so far as the question of sentence is concerned. 12. Though Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act provides minimum sentence of R.I. for six months. 12. Though Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act provides minimum sentence of R.I. for six months. If an accused is found guilty for the said offence, but proviso to the said section empowers that the Court may, for adequate and special reason, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months. 13. In this view of the matter considering the above facts that the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1993 and since then 14 years have already elapsed and also considering the fact that the petitioners have already remained in custody for a period of 3 months, in my view, it would not be justified to send the petitioners again to jail. 14. Accordingly, by affirming the conviction of the petitioners for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the revision application is dismissed with modification in sentence as under; the sentence awarded to the petitioners for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well as for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners and they are directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) each in lieu thereof, within a period of 3 months from today and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo RI for a period of 3 months. If the fine is realized the same shall be paid to the informant. 15. With this modification in sentence, the revision application is dismissed. Application dismissed.