Judgment :- 1. This revision arises against two concurrent judgments of the Courts below convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment. 2. Petitioner and his parents stood trial for offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 (i) IPC and 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The father of the petitioner died pending trial and his mother stood acquitted. The petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 498-A IPC and acquitted in respect of other offences. 3. The prosecution case was that this petitioner and PW-1/de facto complainant were married on 09.08.1998. At the time of betrothal PW-1s party had presented the petitioner a sum of Rs.10,000/- and half sovereign gold jewel in keeping with customary rights. When PW-1 resided with them, the accused made dowry demands and repeatedly beat and cruelly treated her. They chased her out of the house. The second and third accused made dowry demands for Rs.10,000/- and Rs.25,000/- and deprived her of 10 sovereigns of jewellery belonging to her. When asked there about they threatened to burn her alive by pouring kerosene over her. Hence, the charges under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506(i) IPC and 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and marked two exhibits. None were examined nor were any exhibits marked on behalf of the defence. 5. On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court acquitted the second accused (3rd accused died pending trial) whilst convicting this petitioner for offence under Section 498-A IPC alone. Against his conviction and sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment imposed upon him, the petitioner moved C.A.No.20 of 2008 which came to be dismissed under judgement of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore, dated 30.06.2008. There against this revision. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 7. The marriage between the petitioner and PW-1 has taken place on 09.08.1998. Admittedly, there have been two complaints preferred by PW-1, the first of the date 10.09.2001 and second of the date 11.11.2001. It is the defence case that in the first complaint there had been no mention of any harassment owing to demand for dowry. 7. The marriage between the petitioner and PW-1 has taken place on 09.08.1998. Admittedly, there have been two complaints preferred by PW-1, the first of the date 10.09.2001 and second of the date 11.11.2001. It is the defence case that in the first complaint there had been no mention of any harassment owing to demand for dowry. In the course of cross-examination PW-1 had admitted that in the first complaint she had asked for action to be taken against the petitioner for having entered into a second marriage and that such complaint was enquired into by the All Women Police Station, Vellore. Though PW-7 has preferred the charge sheet, she informs that on her enquiry the witnesses merely reiterated that stated to PW-6 and hence, she did not record any statements afresh. PW-6 who had conducted the investigation informs that she received the complaint on 11.11.2001 and recorded the statement of the witnesses on the same day. She admits to having completed the investigation within one day. This clearly shows the perfunctory nature of the investigation. The prosecution case is made worse by the admission of PW-6 that PW-1 informed her of having preferred a complaint with the All Women Police Station, Vellore, in the sixth month of her pregnancy, that she did not ascertain the outcome thereof nor made any attempt to satisfy herself if there was any such complaint. She would admit to PW-1 not having informed of any harassment on grounds of dowry after the sixth month and upto the date of the complaint. She would state that PW-1 informed her of dowry demand prior thereto. She would state that she had no knowledge of the contents of the complaint preferred to the All Women Police Station, Vellore, relating to the demand for dowry and harassment on such account. She would admit that the complaint by PW-1 to her was in relation to a second marriage entered into by the petitioner and of the petitioner not having visited her after the birth of the child as the reasons for preferring the complaint and in so doing, the past occurrences have been made mention of by PW-1, i.e., the gravamen of the complaint recorded by PW-6 was not the dowry harassment or cruelty meted out but the factum of second marriage. PW-6 admits to not having caused any investigation on PW-1s allegation of the petitioner having kicked her when she was pregnant and causing an abortion. She has admitted to no knowledge of the dates on which PW-1 was beaten or harassed. Though PW-6 denies the defence suggestion that she could have ascertained the truth by examining persons around the residence of PW-1, it is clear that her investigation hardly is worth mention as she informs that she did cause enquiry at the place where PW-1 was resident but did not come to know the names of the persons. From a reading of the evidence of PW-1 and that of her father PW-2, it would appear that the first complaint, itself preferred after a period of 2½ years after the marriage, would have related only to the allegation of a second marriage entered upon by the petitioner. In any event, this Court does not have the benefit of perusal of such complaint to satisfy itself if indeed acts of cruelty on grounds of dowry harassment were spoken to therein. Even if so, the same will be a matter for investigation by the All Women Police Station officials, Vellore. The possibility of false implication in the present case, preferred three years after the marriage, that too after an admitted prior complaint, cannot be ruled out. PW-2, in cross, has admitted that he would drop the present case if a decree of divorce was obtained. In any event, there has been no investigation worth the while in the case and on the basis of such a perfunctory investigation, no conviction could follow. 8. In the result, the Criminal Revision stands allowed. The orders of the Courts below are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of all charges in the case. Fine, if any paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner.