JUDGMENT : The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 03.01.2004, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1999, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 497 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for four years for the offence committed and punishable under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence committed and punishable under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of the informant Abhimanyu Pandit (P.W. 3), recorded by the Officer-in-Charge, Borio Police Station in the district of Sahibganj on 12.09.1998, at round 5.00 P.M. alleging therein that his wife Urmila Devi has left the house on 11.09.1998 at 7.00 A.M. and since then, she is missing. The informant has further alleged that he got information that his wife has illicit relationship with co-villager Anil Pandit, for which both were scolded but there was no improvement in her behaviour. The informant has further alleged that this fact is known to his sons namely Dilip Kumar Pandit aged about 12 years and Pradip Kumar Pandit, aged about 10 years and also to co-villagers namely Keso Pandit, Rajindra Pandit and others. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, police has registered Borio P.S. Case No. 118 of 1998 dated 12.09.1998 under Sections 497 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant Anil Pandit. 4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet against the accused vide charge sheet no. 100 of 1998, dated 31.10.1998 initially under Sections 366 and 497 of the Indian Penal Code but subsequently sections 366 and 497 have been changed to Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 30.11.1998 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 16.03.1999. 6. The charge has been framed against the accused/appellant under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 23.05.2000, to which the accused/appellant has pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial. 7. 6. The charge has been framed against the accused/appellant under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 23.05.2000, to which the accused/appellant has pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial. 7. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether eleven witnesses and also exhibited documentary evidence up to Exhibit-4. Mrs. Sunita Prasad, Medical Officer has been examined as P.W. 1, who has proved the injury report of the victim, which has been marked as Exhibit-1. Urmila Devi, wife of the informant, has been examined as P.W. 2, Abhimanyu Pandit, informant of the case, has been examined as P.W. 3, Dilip Kumar Pandit, son of the informant, has been examined as P.W. 4, Keso Pandit and Rajindra Pandit, co-villagers, who have also put their left thumb impression on the fardbeyan, have been examined as P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 respectively, Ulesh Pandit and Manikchand Pandit have been examined as P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 respectively and have been declared hostile by the prosecution, Jeewan Lal Pandit, co-villager, has been examined as P.W. 9, Ram Lalit Prasad Singh, investigating officer of the case, has been examined as P.W. 10 and Rajesh Pandit, cousin of the victim, has been examined as P.W. 11. 8. The prosecution has also adduced four documentary evidence in support of its case. The injury report of the victim has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1, signature of Abhimanyu Pandit (P.W. 3) on his fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2, fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 3 and formal F.I.R. has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 4. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused/appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 17.12.2003, where he has denied about the occurrence and has claimed himself to be innocent. 10. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, holding the appellant guilty under Section 497 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal, assailing the same. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Archi Rabi, Advocate. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal, assailing the same. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Archi Rabi, Advocate. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. R.S. Mazumdar has further submitted that recently Hon'ble Supreme Court has struck down Section 497 IPC as unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India vide judgment dated 27.09.2018 passed in Joseph Shine Versus Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 194 of 2017. The learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that since the Section 497 IPC has been struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and in view of judgment as reported in AIR 1983 SC 473 , Mithu Vs. State of Punjab followed by the judgment report in (2014) 4 SCC 747 , Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma vs. State of Tripura, the ratio is applicable in the present case. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. R.S. Mazumdar has further submitted that relying upon the judgment of State of Punjab vs. Dalbir Singh as reported in (2012) 3 SCC 346 , the judgment passed in Joseph Shine (supra) is binding upon this Court, so far striking down of Section 497 IPC is concerned. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the appeal is only with respect to the conviction of the appellant under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that even from the reading of the First Information Report, evidence of Urmila Devi (P.W. 2), Abhimanayu Pandit (P.W. 3), Dilip Kumar Pandit (P.W. 4), Keso Pandit (P.W. 5), Rajindra Pandit (P.W. 6) and Jeewan Lal Pandit (P.W. 9), it is apparent that Urmila Devi has gone herself with the appellant Anil Pandit and is a major woman, as such the appellant has not committed any offence under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that Rajesh Pandit (P.W. 11), cousin of Urmila Devi has found Urmila Devi in a bus alone and as such, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Senior Counsel has thus, submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is well founded and is based on the materials available on record. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the present case is of the year, 1998 and the judgment has been passed in the year 2004. Section 497 IPC has been declared unconstitutional and struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year, 2018 and as such, the application of aforesaid judgment with respect to Section 497 IPC will not be applicable in a case, in which trial has already been concluded in the year, 2004 and as such, the judgment passed in Joseph Shine vs. Union of India (supra) is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Section 498 IPC reads as follows: “498. Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Section 498 IPC reads as follows: “498. Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman. -Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” Learned counsel for the State has drawn attention of this Court towards the evidence of Urmila Devi (P.W. 2) in paragraph-4 of her cross-examination which is quoted herein under: ^^vfuy iafMr us tks ÁyksHku eq>s fn;k Fkk mls iwjk ugha fd;kA** Learned counsel for the State has thus, submitted that ingredient of Section 497 IPC is present in this case, as such the appellant has been rightly convicted by the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the State has thus submitted that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not warrant interference from this Hon'ble Court. 13. Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Archi Rabi, Advocate and learned counsel for the State Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor, perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report, framing of the charge, evidence of eleven prosecution witnesses, four prosecution exhibits and statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 CrPC. as well as the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Mrs. Sunita Prasad (P.W. 1) is the Medical Officer, who has examined the victim and assessed her age to be above 18 years and the injury report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1. Urmila Devi, wife of the informant and victim of the case has been examined as P.W. 2 and she has supported the prosecution case to the effect that she has been enticed by the appellant and the promise made by the appellant has not been fulfilled. Abhimanyu Pandit (P.W. 3) is the informant of the case, who has supported his fardbeyan which is the basis of First Information Report. Abhimanyu Pandit (P.W. 3) is the informant of the case, who has supported his fardbeyan which is the basis of First Information Report. This witness has been cross-examined by the defence and during cross-examination, this witness has stated that his sons have informed him that their mother has illicit relationship with Anil Pandit (appellant). Dilip Kumar Pandit is the son of the informant, who has been examined as P.W. 4 and has also supported the prosecution case and submitted that Anil Pandit, a co-villager, used to meet his mother. This witness has also clarified that Anil is not related with them. This witness has admitted that he has disclosed these to his father about the act of his mother meeting Anil Pandit secretly. Keso Pandit (P.W. 5) has also supported the prosecution case by proving his left hand thumb impression and the left hand thumb impression of Rajindra Pandit (P.W. 6) on the fardbeyan. Rajindra Pandit (P.W. 6) has also supported the prosecution case and proved his left hand thumb impression on the fardbeyan and claimed to identify the accused Anil Pandit. In reply to court question, this witness (P.W. 6) has admitted that Urmila was found along with Anil in Boriyo Bazar. Ulesh Pandit has been examined as P.W. 7 and Manikchand Pandit has been examined as P.W. 8 and both have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Jeewan Lal Pandit, a co-villager has been examined as P.W. 9 and has also supported the prosecution case and has stated that Anil Pandit used to visit the house of Urmila Devi earlier also. This witness has stated in paragraph-8 of his cross-examination that he heard that Urmila Devi has fled away from her house as disclosed by her sons, who came to his house and disclosed the fact. This witness has further stated in paragraph-13 of his cross-examination that earlier Abhimanayu Pandit was quarelling with his wife Urmila Devi by asking his wife not to keep relation with Anil. Ram Lalit Prasad Singh, investigating officer of the case has been examined as P.W. 10. This witness has stated that after investigation he found the case to be true and submitted charge sheet. This witness has stated that Manik Chand Pandit has disclosed before him that Anil Pandit has illicit relationship with Urmila Devi. Ram Lalit Prasad Singh, investigating officer of the case has been examined as P.W. 10. This witness has stated that after investigation he found the case to be true and submitted charge sheet. This witness has stated that Manik Chand Pandit has disclosed before him that Anil Pandit has illicit relationship with Urmila Devi. This witness has also stated in paragraph-19 of his cross-examination that during investigation, he has found the illicit relationship between the victim Urmila Devi and accused Anil Pandit since before. Rajesh Pandit (P.W. 1) is the brother of Urmila Devi (P.W. 2). This witness has stated that he heard that his sister has been kidnapped by a boy. This Court has minutely scrutinised the evidence and is in agreement with the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. R. S. Mazumdar as reported in (2012) 3 SCC 346 , State of Punjab versus Dalbir Singh as in the said case, the conviction of the appellant under Section 27 (3) of the Arms Act has been set aside declaring Section 27 (3) of Arms Act as unconstitutional and in the same analogy, because of striking down of Section 497 of the IPC by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 27.09.2018 in the case of Joseph Shine vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 194 of 2007, the appellant is also entitled to the same benefit, as Section 497 IPC has been declared unconstitutional. So far Section 498 IPC is concerned, the evidence brought by the prosecution is consistent and corroborative with the statement of the victim Urmila Devi (P.W. 2), who has stated in paragraph-4 of her cross-examination that Anil Pandit has not fulfilled his promise, upon which he has enticed her. 14. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court affirms the conviction of the appellant under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code and also affirms the sentence passed by the learned trial court i.e. rigorous imprisonment for one year. 15. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Mr. R.S. Mazumdar has submitted that as per information the appellant has served more than eight months in custody. 16. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. 15. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Mr. R.S. Mazumdar has submitted that as per information the appellant has served more than eight months in custody. 16. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that this point cannot be decided by this Court, as this has to be verified from the record by the court below and the State, as per jail manual. 17. Under the discussions made above, the State authority is directed to act in accordance with law and jail manual. 18. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 03.01.2004, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1999, arising out of Borio P.S. Case No. 118 of 1998, corresponding to G. R. No. 288 of 1998, is hereby affirmed and upheld with regard to Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code as this Court is considering the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, declaring Section 497 IPC as unconstitutional, as such the conviction of appellant has only been dealt under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. 19. The appellant, who is on bail, his bail bond is hereby cancelled to serve out the rest of the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court for the offence under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant named above, is directed to surrender before the court below forthwith to serve out rest of the sentence. In case the appellant does not surrender, the learned trial court shall take all coercive steps for attendance of the appellant to serve out rest of the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. 20. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is dismissed without any interference. 21. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the learned court concerned, at once for necessary action.