JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 30.10.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 28/2002, whereby he gave benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused-non-petitioners from the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under The petitioner submitted a report on 15.10.2001 before the SHO, Mahila Police Station, Alwar, wherein he stated that his daughter Chandra Kanta was married with Anil Kumar on 26.2.2001 and he gave much dowry at his capacity. 3. Father-in-law Ramavtar, brother-in-law (Jeth and Devar) Kailash Chand, Kamal Chand, Kamal Kant and Sister-in-law (Jethani) were harassing her for dowry. They were beating her also. Husband of her daughter was serving at Nagaur and behind his back, they were harassing her to provoke death. On that day, he received a telephonic call from Ramavtar that his daughter has committed suicide. 4. Thereafter, he (complainant-petitioner), Yashodanand, Khushiram and Satish went to the house of his daughter's in-laws, where his daughter was lying dead on cot. He was doubtful about his natural death, therefore, he submitted the report. On the basis of the above report, the police registered a case against Ramavatar, Kailash Chand, Kamalkant, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased. After investigation, police filed challan before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate No.4, Alwar against the non-petitioners No.1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. 5. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Court has framed the charges against the accused-non-petitioners for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304- B and the same were read over before the accused-petitioners, who denied for the charges and claim to be tried. Thereafter, the prosecution has submitted 20 witnesses and exhibited some documents. Thereafter, the statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and some defence witnesses were also examined. After hearing both the sides, the trial Court has acquitted the accused-non-petitioners, vide his order dated 30.10.2002. Hence, this revision petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully considered the material available on record. The learned advocate Mr. Dileep Singh Jadoun has contended that the order dated 30.12.2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Alwar is contrary to law. Hence, this revision petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully considered the material available on record. The learned advocate Mr. Dileep Singh Jadoun has contended that the order dated 30.12.2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Alwar is contrary to law. It was not disputed before the trial Court that the marriage of Chandra Kanta and Anil Kumar took place on 26.2.2001. She died on 15.10.2001 and she was died after eight months of her marriage by unnatural death. As per Section 304-B I.P.C., there were sufficient material available on record. The definition of Section 304-B I.P.C. runs as under: "Section 304B. Dowry death.-(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-section; "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life." 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the trial Court has not considered this fact that the accused were demanding dowry soon after the marriage and demanded motorcycle and Rs. 20,000/- and they were harassing the deceased. The trial Court has not considered the statements of PW-1 Prabhu Dayal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the trial Court has not considered this fact that the accused were demanding dowry soon after the marriage and demanded motorcycle and Rs. 20,000/- and they were harassing the deceased. The trial Court has not considered the statements of PW-1 Prabhu Dayal. The relevant portion of the statement of Prabhu Dayal runs as under: " esjh csVh dk uke panzdkark gS mldh 'kknh vfuy lkFk 26-2-2001 dks gqvk FkkA Vhds esa lksus pkanh dh vaxwBh o cgqr lkjk lkeku 'kknh esa ngst esa fn;k Fkk ftldh fyLV eSaus is'k dj jk[kh gSA esjh csVh tc llqjky ls vkbZ rks eq>s dgrh Fkh fd os eq>s cgqr rax djrs gS rFkk dgrs gS fd ngst de fn;k gS ftlls vlarq"V gS] gedks 20]000@& o eksVj lkbZfdy vkSj nsA eSaus viuh vkfFkZd etcwjh crkrs gq, nsus ls euk dj fn;kA mlds ckn esjh cPph dks ijs'kku djus yx x, mldks vk/kk isV Hkw[kk j[krs FksA ekjihV djrs Fks bl ekjihV esa esjh csVh dk llqj jkekSorkj] lkl 'kdqaryk nsoh] tsB dSyk'k pan] tsBkuh fdj.kk] ifr vfuy] nsoj deydkar lHkh yksx 'kkfey jgrs FksA esjs nkekn vfuy] ukok ftyk ukxkSj lkcw lkYV esa etnwjh djrk FkkA 15-10-2001 dks eq>s jkr dks djhc 8-45 cts jkekSorkj us dylkMk Qksu fd;k fd vkidh cPph xaHkhj gkyr esa gS] l[r chekj gS rks esa vyoj vk;kA eSa vyoj esa esjh llqjky esa vk;kA esjh llqjky ls ;'kksnkuan esjk lkyk esjs lk<+w dk cPpk [kq'khjke] lrh'k [kaMsyoky] dks lkFk ysdj Ldhe ua0 10 x;kA ogka ij dejs esa esjh cPph dks [kkV ij fcLrjksa esa lqyk j[kk FkkA eSaus cPph dks ns[krs gh eq>s 'kd gqvk eSaus Fkkus esa fjiksVZ ntZ djokbZA rgjhj fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih0 1 gS ftl ij ,s ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA iqfyl us uD'kk ekSdk izn'kZ ih 3 cuk;k Fkk ftl ij ,s lh ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA ngst esa tks lkeku fn;k x;k Fkk mldh fyLV izn'kZ ih04 gS ftl ij ,s ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA esjh cPph dh psgjs esa eqag can Fkk] vkWa[ksa can Fkh vkSj psgjk 'kkUr FkkA esjh cPph ds xys esa fu'kku FkkA vU; fdlh ls bl lEcU/k esa esjh vkSj dksbZ ckr ugha gqbZA esjh cPph ds xys esa fu'kku FkkA vU; fdlh ls bl lEcU/k esa esjh vkSj dksbZ ckr ugha gqbZA esjh csVh esjs nkekn ds lkFk ukxkSj esa dqN fnu jgh FkhA ukxkSj ls vkus ds ckn eq>s feyh FkhA eq>s rkjh[k ;kn ugha ysfdu e`R;q ds ,d gQrs igys lkseokj dks vkbZ FkhA esjh csVh us eq>s vkbZ rks crk;k fd 20]000@& o eksVjlkbZfdy ekaxrs gS] rax djrs gS] ekjihV djrs gS] [kkuk HkjisV ugha nsrs gSA " In the same manner the trial Court has not considered the statements of other witnesses which run as under: (1)Yashodanand Gupta(PW-2) " panzdkark esjh Hkkath FkhA bldh 'kknh vfuy ds lkFk 26-2-2001 dks gqbZ FkhA eSa 'kknh esa 'kkfey gqvk FkkA 'kknh vPNh gqbZ Fkh] gSfl;r ls T;knk /ku yxk;k x;k FkkA ,d ckj eSa viuh cgu ls feyus x;k Fkk rks eq>s panzdkark feyh Fkh rks mlus dgk Fkk fd eq>s lkl] llqj] nsoj] tsB] tsBkuh rax o ijs'kku djrs gS rFkk ifr vfuy Hkh rax o ijs'kku djrk gSaA vfuy 20]000@& o ghjks gksaMk eksVjlkbZfdy dh ekax djrk gS vkSj ekjkihVh Hkh djrk gSA eSaus panzdkark dks le>k;k fd ge jkekSorkj ls ckr djsaxsA eSaus bl ckj esa jkekSorkj ls ckr Hkh dh Fkh rks mlus dgk fd rqeus ngst de fn;k gSA 15-10-2001 dks esjs ikl jkekSorkj vk;k Fkk mlus dgk fd panzdkark chekj gS rks eSaus dgk fd ;fn chekj gS rks esjs thtk dks cqyokvksa bUgksaus dgk rqe pyks rks eSaus dgk fd eSa ,sls ugha pywWaxk rks eSaus vius thtk izHkqn;ky dks Qksu fd;k rks izHkqn;ky th us dgk fd Qksu esjs ikl Hkh vk;k gS eSa vk jgk gwWaA esjs thtk djhc 20&25 feuV esa esjs ikl igqWap x, rks ge jkekSorkj ds ?kj x,A ogka ns[kk fd fdokM+ mM+ky j[ks Fks mij dejs esa panzdkUrk dks [kr ij fyVk j[kk Fkk ,oa eqga <+kdk gqvk Fkk tSls eqga mxkMk rks pUnzdkUrk ejh feyhA esjs thtk izHkqn;ky th fjiksVZ ntZ djokus ds fy, pys x,A ml le; vfuy ogka ij ekStwn ugha FkkA ml le; jkekSorkj xqIrk] mldh iRuh] pUnzdkark ds tsB] tsBkuh] nsoj o nks cPps ekStwn FksA fjiksVZ ntZ djus ds ckn iqfyl vkbZ FkhA esjs lkeus uD'kk ekSdk cuk Fkk tks izn'kZ ih03 gS ftl ij esjs gLrk{kj lh ls Mh gSA ogka ij ,d jLlh Fkh ftlds nks VqdM+s Fks ,d dkQh cM+k Fkk ,d NksVk Fkk o ,d pkdw Fkk ftls tCr fd;k FkkA QnZ ukfj;y jLlh tks izn'kZ ih0 5 gS ftl ij ,s ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gS] QnZ tCrh pkdw izn'kZ ih0 6 gS ftl ij ,s lh ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA " (2) Khushiram (PW-4) " panzdkark esjh ekSlh dh yM+dh FkhA mldh 'kknh vfuy ds lkFk 26-2-2002 dks gqbZ FkhA eSa 'kknh esa 'kkfey gqvk FkkA 'kknh Bhd gqbZ FkhA eSa vius ekek ds ?kj x;k gqvk Fkk ftudk uke ;'kksnkuan gS] ogka esjs ekSlk izHkqn;ky th mifLFkr Fks mUgkasus crk;k fd panzdkark ej xbZ gSA fQj ge jkekSorkj ds ?kj x, muds lkFk eSa] ekek ;'kksnkuan] ekSlk izHkqn;ky o lrh'k Hkh lkFk x;k FkkA geus ns[kk panzdkark pkjikbZ ij ysVh gqbZ Fkh] esjh voLFkk esa FkhA geus jtkbZ dks gVkdj ns[kk fd xys ij fu'kku Fkk vkSj uk[kwu uhys iM+s gq, FksA ekSlk th us dksrokyh esa fjiksVZ ntZ djok nh FkhA ekSlk th ge lHkh ls dgk Fkk fd panzdkark dks ;s ijs'kku djrs Fks blh dkj.k ls ;g yM+dh ejh gSaA vkSj fdlh rjg dh ckr ugha crkbZ ;s gh ckrsa gks jgh FkhA ml le; panzdkark dk ifr vfuy ekStwn ugha FkkA " (3) Yogesh Kumar (PW-5) " esjh cgu dk uke panzdkark FkkA bldh 'kknh 26-2-2001 dks vfuy dqekj ds lkFk gqbZ FkhA 'kknh geus viuh gSfl;r ds eqrkfcd lgh dh FkhA 'kknh esa Vh0oh0 dwyj] e'kkhu vkfn lkeku fn;k FkkA 15]000@& ds djhc uxn fn, FksA esjh cgu 'kknh ds ckn llqjky esa jgrh FkhA esjs cguksbZ vfuy QSDV~h ukok lkcw lksfM;e esa dke djrs FksA esjh cgu dqN fnu vyoj jgh dqN fnu ukok jghA tc Hkh gekjh cgu gekjs ?kj vkbZ rks mlus dgk fd llqjky okys rax djrs gS rFkk 20]000@& o eksVjlkbZfdy dh ekax djrs gSA esjh cgu us crk;k dh jkekSorkj] dSyk'k] fdjunsoh] 'kadqryk] deydkar] vfuy dqekj djrs FksA eq>s rkfj[k dk /;ku ugha gSA vfuy th tc Hkh gekjs ;gkWa vkrs rks ekax djrs FksA flatkjk ij tc eSa viuh cgu ds llqjky vk;k rks mUgksaus ekax Hkh dh Fkh vkSj esjh cgu ds lkFk ekjihV Hkh dh FkhA esjh cgu ds llqjky i{k ds lHkh yksx ns[k jgs Fks vkSj vfuy esjh cgu ds lkFk ekjihV dj jgk FkkA rc eSaus mUgsa euk fd;k rks eq>s Hkh mYVk lh/kk dgkA panzdkark thfor ugha gSaA " " panzdkark dh e`R;q 15-10-2001 dks gqbZ FkhA eq>s lqcg Qksu vk;k Fkk fd rqEgkjh cgu ej pqdh gSA eSa ;g [kcj lqudj cgu ds llqjky vk;kA esjs lkFk dksbZ ugha vk;kA eSa vLirky x;k vkSj ns[kk fd cgu ej pqdh gSA panzdkark ejus ls 8&10 fnu igys eq>s feyh FkhA tc esjh cgu us ekax dh ckr crkbZ ml le; lHkh ifjokj ds yksx ekStwn FksA eq>s irk ugha fd esjh cgu dh e`R;q gqbZ rc vfuy ekStwn Fkk ;k ughaA uD'kk ekSdk izn'kZ ih0 3 esjs lkeus cuk;k x;k Fkk ftl ij esjs gLrk{kj bZ ls ,sQ gSaA iapk;rukek izn'kZ ih0 7 gS ftl ij esjs gLrk{kj ,s ls ch gSA " (4) Manju Gupta (PW-6) " esjh cgu dh 'kknh vfuy xqIrk iq= Jh jkekSorkj xqIrk ds lkFk 26-2-2001 dks gqbZ FkhA 'kknh ds ckn esjh cgu x.kxkSj iwtus ds fy, gekjs xkWao vkbZ FkhA esjh cgu vkbZ rks esjh ckr gqbZ Fkh mlus dgk fd eq>s lkl] llqj] tsB] tsBkuh] ft;kth rsjs] ngst ds fy, ijs'kku djrs gSaA esjh cgu ls eSaus dgk fd D;k ekax djrs gS rks esjh cgu us crk;k fd 20]000@& vkSj ,d eksVjlkbZfdy dh ekax dh ekax djrs gSA esjs thtk esjh cgu dks ysus xkao esa vk;s FksA esjs thtk us dgk fd tks ngst esa fn;k x;k gS mlls esjs ifjokj ds lnL; larq"V ugha gS] 20]000@& vkSj ,d eksVjlkbZfdy dh ekax dh ekax djrs gSA esjs thtk esjh cgu dks ysus xkao esa vk;s FksA esjs thtk us dgk fd tks ngst esa fn;k x;k gS mlls esjs ifjokj ds lnL; larq"V ugha gS] 20]000@& vkSj ,d eksVjlkbZfdy nksA eSaus dgk fd ;g ckr vki dg jgs gks vkSj yksx rks ugha dgrs rks esjs thtk us dgk fd ;g ckr esjs ifjokj ds lHkh lnL; dgrs gSaA esjh cgu fonk gksus ds ckn vyoj vkbZ vkSj fdrus fnu vyoj jgh eq>s irk ughaA esjs thtk ukxkSj esa ukok LFkku ij dke djrs FksA esjh cgu ukok xbZ Fkh ogka vankts ls djhc pkj&lk<+s pkj eghus ukok esa jgh FkhA esjh cgu ukok ls j{kkca/ku ds le; vkbZ ;fn bl chp esa vkbZ gks rks eq>s /;ku ughaA esjh cgu ls mldh e`R;q ls djhc 15 fnu igys ckr gqbZ Fkh rc mlus ;g crk;k fd esjs llqjky okys cgqr ijs'kku dj jgs gSA ge nksuksa cguksa dh gh ckr gqbZ FkhA 15 fnu igys tc cgu xkao vkbZ Fkh rc vfuy ls esjh ckr gqbZ Fkh rc Hkh mUgksaus ngst dh ekax dh FkhA " (5) Gulkandi (PW-7) " esjh iksrh panzdkark dh 'kknh vfuy ds lkFk dks gqbZ FkhA rkjh[k eSa le>rh ugha gwWa vk/ks Qkxqu esa gqbZ FkhA 'kknh esa iwjk lkeku fn;k x;k FkkA esjh iksrh us ?kj vkus ij eq>s crk;k fd mls mldh lkl] llqj] tsB] tsBkuh] nsoj ------------------ NqMkrk gSA eksVjlkbZfdy o 20]000@& dh ekax djrs gS esjh iksrh vfuy ds lkFk pkj eghus ukok esa jgh FkhA ukok ls vkus ij gekjh iksrh gels feyus vkbZ Fkh vkSj vk/kk ?kaVk :dh FkhA esjh iksrh jksrh gh jgh FkhA panzdkark dks feykus vfuy lkFk vk;k FkkA eq>s ckr panzdkark us gh crkbZ Fkh vU; fdlh us ugha crkbZA " (6) Shanti (PW-7) " esjh csVh panzdkark dh 'kknh vfuy ds lkFk dks gqbZ FkhA 'kknh ds ckn panzdkark esjs ikl x.kxkSj ds le; jgus vkbZ FkhA esjh csVh us crk;k fd vfuy o mlds ifjokj okys ftlesa lkl] tsBkuh] tsB] nsoj] llqj lHkh us mlds lkFk MaM+ks ls ekjihV dh FkhA ;g ngst ds fy, ekjihV djrs FksA ngst esa 20]000@& :i;s dh ekax dh FkhA vkSj D;k ekax jgs Fks] /;ku ughaA esjh yM+dh dks cgqr ekjk FkkA ngst ugha ns jgs Fks blfy, cgqr ekj jgk FkkA tks pht ekax jgs Fks mldh fyLV cuk j[kh gSA " 8. In addition to that he has cited the following judgments: (1) Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2007 Cr.L.R. (SC) 931 , wherein the Apex Court held as under: "(A) Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 113-A & 113-B-Presumption under-Distinction-Explained. (B) Penal Code, 1860-Section 304-B-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 113-B-Presumption under-Dowry death-Harassment and cruelty on account of dowry demand proved-Testimony of PW-1 and PW- 2 sufficient to prove offence-No omnibus allegation against all members of family-Held, On facts and evidence offence under Section 304-B stood proved-Conviction upheld." (2) Animireddy Venkata Ramana & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, H.C. of A.P., reported in 2008 Cr.L.R. (SC) 238 , wherein the Apex Court held as under:- "(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 154-F.I.R.-Name of all the accused persons and overt-acts played stated at length-Each and every detail of incident not necessary to be stated-F.I.R. is not meant to be encyclopedic." (3) The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahendra Singh & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2008(1) RCC 242 , wherein the learned Division Bench held as under: "Penal Code, 1860-Sections 304-B and 498-A-Dowry death- Conviction by trial Court-Awarding of L.I. for offence under Section 304-B I.P.C.-Appeal-Died under abnormal circumstances -Sustained seven injuries-Cause of death, haemorrhage shock- PW-2 (Neighbour) deposed that deceased came to him in night and divulged that appellant had given beating to her-PW-1 stated that soon before her abnormal death, she was subjected to harassment in connection with demand of dowry by appellant 'MS'-'Divory' explained-(Paras 4-9)-Case law cited and discussed (Paras 6-12). Charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A established against appellant 'MS'-Conviction maintained-Looking to his age, sentenced to 10 years R.I.-Over implication of KC acquitted." (4) Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2002 RCC (SC) 314 , wherein the Apex Court held as under: "(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 160, 161 and 162- Criminal trial-Defective investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal-The trial Court acquitted the accused owing to defective investigation, doubtful recovery of weapon and contradictions in the statement of witnesses-The High Court, after setting aside the order convicted and sentenced the accused-In appeal, the Supreme Court held that-The trial Court was not justified in holding that statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded late or that identity of weapon was doubtful-Contradictions minor in nature-Defective investigation by itself cannot be made ground of acquitting the accused-Witnesses truthful, cannot be discarded." (5) Rameshwar Dass v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in 2008 RCC (SC) 93 , wherein the Apex Court held as under: "I. Indian Penal Code, Section 304B, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113- B-Dowry death-Cruelty and harassment-Deceased, 5-6 months pregnant wife of accused committing suicide within 7 years from the date of her marriage-At the time of marriage accused husband demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/- in cash apart from the amount already given earlier, and for non-fulfilment of the demand deceased was allegedly tortured after marriage-Demand of dowry substantiated by evidence of PWs 1 and 2-Accused and deceased found quarrelling with each other on the day of incident also on account of the demand of dowry of Rs.40,000/- why accused wasn't available for six days of the incident not explained-A pregnant women ordinarily would not commit suicide unless her relationship with her husband comes to such a pass that she would be compelled to do so-Prosecution discharged its primary onus under Section 304-B, and the onus of proof was, upon accused to rebut the presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act which he failed to discharge-Conviction upheld. "II. "II. Indian Penal Code, Section 304B-Dowry Death-Conviction- Reduction of sentence-Plea for condonation of offence on the ground that 21 years passed since the incident and accused had married a cousin of his deceased wife-Unacceptable-Offence under Section 304-B not compoundable-Why and under what circumstances said cousin was married to accused unknown, and only because of the alleged marriage prosecution story cannot be rejected and also to impose a lesser sentence-Sentence of 7 years R.I. being the minimum prescribed for the offence, upheld." 9. At last, he has urged to this Court through this revision petition to convict the non-petitioners-accused for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304- B I.P.C. 10. On the other hand, the learned advocate Mr. S.S. Sunda and Mr. R.N. Sharma along with learned Public Prosecutor Mr. R.S. Shekhawat has opposed the arguments advanced by Mr. Dileep Singh Jadoun. He has contended that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution and no interference is required in this regard. He has further objected that this Court has got no power to convict the accused-non-petitioners and he has drawn attention of this Court on the statement of the defence witnesses "specifically". That this is a false case and there is a contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused-non-petitioner after giving the cogent reasons. In addition to that he has also submitted various citations which run as under: (1) Bindeshwari Prasad Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2907. (2) Johar & Ors. v. Mangal Prasad & Anr., reported in 2008 Cri.L.J. 1627. (3) Hydru v. State of Kerala, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 374 . (4) Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh & Anr., reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3380. (5) Akalu Ahir & Ors. v. Ramdeo Ram, reported in AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2145 . (6) Ram Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in 2008 Cri.L.J. 1941. (7) Sunil Bajaj v. State of M.P., reported in 2001 Cri.L.J. 4700. (8) Meka Ramaswamy v. Dasari Mohari, reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 774. 11. (5) Akalu Ahir & Ors. v. Ramdeo Ram, reported in AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2145 . (6) Ram Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in 2008 Cri.L.J. 1941. (7) Sunil Bajaj v. State of M.P., reported in 2001 Cri.L.J. 4700. (8) Meka Ramaswamy v. Dasari Mohari, reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 774. 11. For these reasons, I set aside the order dated 30.10.2002 and remitted back to the trial Court to re-hear the matter and decide as afresh within a period of one month from the receipt of the certified copy of this order.Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is disposed of.Revision allowed. *******