IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.724 of 2010 1. MD. AKHTAR S/O- MD. ALLAUDDIN 2. MD. ALLAUDIN SAH, S/O- LATE MD. AJJO 3. MOJILA KHATOON, W/O- MD. ALLAUDDIN SAH ALL ARE R/O- VILLAGE RAHTA, P.S.- UDA KISHUNGANJ, DISTT. MADHEPURA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. B.P. Pandey, Sr. Advocate Mr. S.C. Giri, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 3 11.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Three petitioners join hands in filing the present application. They are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the informant. They were charged under diverse sections of the Indian Penal Code including Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On a consideration of the evidence brought on record, learned trial court by judgment and order dated 14th August 2008 passed in Tr. No. 1770 of 2008 found them guilty under the aforesaid sections. Accordingly, they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years with fine having default clause under Section 498A IPC. They were also held guilty and sentenced under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 04 months and imposition of fine having default clause. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, they preferred Cr. Appeal no. 118 of 2008 in the Court of 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur. The appellate Court rescanned the 2 evidence brought on record by the parties and came to a conclusion that their convictions under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act were based on correct and legal appraisal of the evidence requiring no interference. However, having regard to the materials available on record, the sentence recorded against the father-in-law and mother-in-law (petitioner nos. 2 and 3) was/were reduced. Instead of R.I. for 03 years, the same was reduced to R.I. for 06 months. Similarly fine of Rs. 3,000/- was reduced to a sum of Rs. 1,000/- Sentence under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act was also reduced to 01 month with fine having default clause. So far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, learned lower appellate court maintained the conviction and sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the orders impugned submits that as per the prosecution case, the entire occurrence had taken place in the district of Madhepura whereas the prosecution was levied in the district of Bhagalpur. It is thus submitted that lack of territorial jurisdiction of Bhagalpur vitiates the proceeding. He relies on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Ratna versus State of M.P. 2006 (1) Supreme Today 372. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that so far as petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, in the facts and circumstances, the sentence imposed upon them by the lower appellate court requires consideration as they were found fairly aged at the time of recording conviction. 3 Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand supported the impugned judgments passed by the two learned courts below. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. It appears that the aforesaid objection/claim/grievance was raised by the petitioners before the learned appellate court as would appear from paragraph 8 of the judgment. Learned lower appellate court has considered the said submission and has come to the conclusion as under : “ The jurisdictional point should have been raised at the earliest.. Notwithstanding that it is quite clear in the case of continuing offence case can be instituted and enquired into and tried by a court having jurisdiction over such localarea.” Apart from that Section 462 of the Cr.P.C. provides as under: “462. Proceedings in wrong place.- No finding, sentence or order of any Criminal Court shall be set aside merely on the ground that the inquiry, trial or other proceedings in the course of which it was arrived at or passed, took place in a wrong sessions division, district, sub-division or other local area, unless it appears that such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice.” I am thus convinced that the said submission of the petitioner is ill founded and the judgment impugned cannot be upturned on that ground. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to consideration of imposition of sentence of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 needs consideration. It appears from the record that they had to suffer the rigours of trial for nearly four years and thereby to face diverse excruciating 4 circumstances. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is satisfied that R.I. for 05 months in stead of R.I. 06 months imposed under Sections 498A IPC to the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 shall sub-serve the cause of justice. Other parts/conditions of the sentence(s), however, remain untouched/unaltered. The application is dismissed with aforesaid modification in sentence. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )