JUDGMENT P.S. Gopinathan, J. 1. Revision petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No.386 of 2002 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. Second respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioners along with six others (accused Nos.3 to 8) by filing a complaint accusing offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") with plea that on 17-11-2001 accused Nos. 1 and 5 visited his house and put forward a proposal of wedding between his daughter Raji and the 1st accused. He agreed for the same. On 22-11-2001, all the accused went to the house of the 2nd respondent, met the daughter of the 2nd respondent and agreed to proceed with the proposal. Second accused is the mother of the 1st accused. Accused 3 to 7 are the other sons of the 2nd accused and 8th accused is her daughter. In return, the 2nd respondent and others went to the house of the accused and they agreed for proceeding with the proposal of wedding. On 16-12-2001, at the house of the 2nd respondent there was an engagement, wherein relatives and friends of both families attended and decided to conduct the wedding on 20-1-2002 at the Parish Hall of Ebanezar Marthoma Church. The 2nd respondent offered a sum of Rs. 40,000/-and 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments as share of his daughter, to be given at the time of wedding. Accused agreed. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent made all arrangements for the wedding. He arranged money and gold ornaments. Invitations were sent to relatives and friends. While so, on 15-1-2002 accused 2 and 5 went to the house of the 2nd respondent and demanded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-as dowry in addition to the amount of Rs. 40,000/-and 25 sovereigns of gold offered by the 2nd respondent. They further stated that there were other proposals whereby two or three lakhs of rupees were offered as dowry to the 1st accused. Because of the demand for dowry, marriage could not be solemnized. 2. On the complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence and issued process responding to which all accused, except the 5th accused entered appearance. They pleaded not guilty. Fifth accused was reported absconded. 3. On the side of the prosecution PWs.1 to 3 were examined. Exts.P1 and P2 were marked. When questioned under section 313 Cr. 2. On the complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence and issued process responding to which all accused, except the 5th accused entered appearance. They pleaded not guilty. Fifth accused was reported absconded. 3. On the side of the prosecution PWs.1 to 3 were examined. Exts.P1 and P2 were marked. When questioned under section 313 Cr. P. C., the accused took a plea that there was only a proposal for marriage and later it was informed through one Pavithran, who was examined as DW1, that the daughter of the 2nd respondent was not interested in the marriage as she had love affair with one Anilkumar. In support of that plea DWs.1 and 2 were examined. 4. On appraisal of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found the accused 1 and 2 guilty under section 4 of the Act and convicted them thereunder. The 1st accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. Stating that the 2nd accused was an old and ailing lady, she was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-with default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. Case against the fifth accused was split up and re-numbered. 5. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, accused 1 and 2 preferred Crl.A.No.187 of 2005. Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Pathanamthitta, to whom the appeal was made over, by the impugned judgment dated 10-4-2006, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, this revision petition is preferred. 6. Heard Sri.Vinoy Varghese Kallummoottil, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, and Smt. Sreena George, learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners took me through the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment. 7. PW1 is the 2nd respondent. PW2 is the President of Puthukulam SNDP Branch. PW3 is a neighbour. Going by the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, I find that there was proposal for marriage, engagement was held on 16-12-2001 and the wedding was scheduled to 20-1-2002. While so, on 15-1-2002 accused Nos.2 and 5 went to the house of the 2nd respondent and made the demand for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-as dowry in addition to Rs. Going by the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, I find that there was proposal for marriage, engagement was held on 16-12-2001 and the wedding was scheduled to 20-1-2002. While so, on 15-1-2002 accused Nos.2 and 5 went to the house of the 2nd respondent and made the demand for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-as dowry in addition to Rs. 40,000/-and 25 sovereigns of gold offered by the 2nd respondent. Exts.P1 and P2 would show that following the engagement, a certificate was issued from the S.N.D.P. Branch in which the 2nd respondent is a member, and that the date and time of the wedding was fixed in consultation with an astrologer. Though PWs.1 to 3 were subjected to searching cross-examination, no material was disclosed to disbelieve their evidence regarding demand of dowry. The court below did not rely upon the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 on the ground that their evidence is not sufficient to discharge the burden under section 8A of the Act that the revision petitioners had not committed the offence under section 4 of the Act. 8. Very case advanced by the revision petitioners is that the 2nd respondent through DW1 informed that his daughter had love affair with one Anilkumar. But DW1 would deny of having knowledge about the love affair of the daughter of the 2nd respondent with Anilkumar. What DW1 would dispose is that he was the proposer of the marriage and Rajani (bride) requested him, not to persuade her for the marriage. Evidence of DW1 appears very artificial. It is not in tune with the defence plea. Evidence of DW2 is not at all any more better. Therefore, I find that the court below was justified in disbelieving the defence evidence and believing PWs.1 to 3 regarding the demand of dowry by the 2nd and 5th accused. But, carefully going through the evidence of PW1 and the pleadings in the complaint, I find that there is no allegation that on 15-1-2002 the 1st revision petitioner was along with the 2nd and 5th accused when they demanded further dowry. There is also no material to conclude that the demand by the 2nd and 5th accused was with the knowledge or consent of the 1st accused. Sometimes, the 1st accused would be a mute spectator or a helpless chap. There is also no material to conclude that the demand by the 2nd and 5th accused was with the knowledge or consent of the 1st accused. Sometimes, the 1st accused would be a mute spectator or a helpless chap. That is not sufficient to find him guilty for demand of dowry as there is no demand by the 1st revision petitioner. In the above circumstances, I find that the conviction and sentence as against the 1st revision petitioner (1st accused) are not sustainable. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also argued that to constitute an offence under section 4 of the Act, there shall be a marriage and since there was no marriage no offence is made out. I find that a reading of sections 2 and 4 of the Act, which define dowry and the penal provision for demanding dowry, is relevant for a correct appraisal of the case. 10. Section 2 of the Act read as follows:- 2. Definition of 'dowry'.--In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-- a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person. ator before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. Section 4 reads as follows:- 4. Penalty for demanding dowry.--If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees: Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months. 11. The definition of dowry quoted above would include any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given at or before the marriage in connection with the marriage. 11. The definition of dowry quoted above would include any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given at or before the marriage in connection with the marriage. Here in this case, demand is just five days before the marriage. Second respondent had made all arrangements for the marriage. Then comes the demand. Section 4 would show that a demand, directly or indirectly for dowry from the parents or relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom would make out offence under section 4 of the Act. Bide or bridegroom would cover persons, who are parties to a proposed marriage, even before the marriage. Therefore, to establish offence under section 4 of the Act, marriage is not necessary. Demand for dowry even before the marriage would establish offence under section 4 of the Act. In this case the courts below concurrently found that there was demand for dowry after the engagement and before the marriage. Such demand would make out the offense under section 4 of the Act. Reading the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, I find no reason to diverge with the court below. It is also pertinent to note that by section 8A of the Act, in a prosecution alleging offence under section 3 or 4 of the Act, the burden is upon the accused to show that no such taking, abetting or demand of dowry was made by him. In this case, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 would establish the demand made by accused 2 and 5 and there was failure on the side of the revision petitioners to establish that there was no demand. Therefore, I find that the offence under section 4 of the Act is established against the 2nd revision petitioner (2nd accused), but the prosecution has failed to establish that there was demand of dowry by the 1st revision petitioner (1st accused). Conviction against the 2nd revision petitioner is based upon cogent evidence. 12. The trial court was very lenient in reducing the substantial sentence against the 2nd revision petitioner to imprisonment till the rising of the court despite the mandate of the Act for a minimum sentence of six months. Therefore, the sentence against the 2nd revision petitioner requires no interference. The 1st revision petitioner is entitled to an order of acquittal. The conviction and sentence against the 2nd revision petitioner require no interference. 13. Therefore, the sentence against the 2nd revision petitioner requires no interference. The 1st revision petitioner is entitled to an order of acquittal. The conviction and sentence against the 2nd revision petitioner require no interference. 13. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence against the 1st revision petitioner are set aside. He is acquitted and is set at liberty. The conviction and sentence against the 2nd revision petitioner are confirmed. The 2nd revision petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court which shall see the execution of sentence and report compliance.