IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.2020 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : JULY 13, 2011 MANDEEP KAUR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl.AG, Punjab. Ms. Poonam, Advocate, for respondents 2 to 7. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) CRM 38572 of 2009 Delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. The application is allowed. CRR 2020 of 2009 1 This revision petition is directed against judgment of acquittal recorded by lower appellate court viz. Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. 2 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Khanna, vide judgment and order dated 28.9.2006 convicted respondents No.2, 3 and 5 to 7, for commission of offences under Sections 406 and 498-A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them. The said respondents carried an appeal, which has been allowed vide the impugned Criminal Revision No.2020 of 2009 (O&M) 2 judgment. The petitioner-complainant did not carry any appeal in challenge to acquittal of respondent No.4-Sukhwinder Singh alias Sonu. 3 Be that as it may, the lower appellate court has acquitted respondents No.2, 3 and 5 to 7 under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, essentially, on the ground that the complainant has not been able to specifically show the names of the accused to whom the dowry articles, which were given, were entrusted. The complainant has also not alleged that she raised a demand for return of dowry articles, whereupon the accused refused to return the same. In such circumstances, it has been held that ingredients of Section 406, Indian Penal Code, are not made out. 4 In regard to acquittal under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, it has been recorded that there are no specific allegations. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show to this Court that any piece of evidence, which was material, has not been considered by the courts below. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show misreading of any piece of evidence, which has caused prejudice to the case of the petitioner. 6 In view of the above, no ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out. 7 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. July 13, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE Criminal Revision No.2020 of 2009 (O&M) 3 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?