HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.386 OF 2011 Dated 13-6-2014 Between: Gurramkonda Vasudevarao and another. ....Petitioners. And: The States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.386 OF 2011 ORDER: This Criminal Revision is preferred against Judgment of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore dated 18-2-2011 in Criminal Appeal No.147 of 2009 whereunder Judgment dated 31-8-2009 in C.C.No.470 of 2008 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, F.A.C. V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class is confirmed. 2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows: Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Nellore filed charge sheet against the petitioners herein and three others for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nellore who was holding Full Additional Charge of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nellore on a consideration of six prosecution witnesses and 18 prosecution documents besides 11 defence documents found the petitioners herein i.e., A.1 and A.2 guilty for the offences under Section 498-A I.P.C. and also for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly convicted them. Learned trial judge sentenced 1st petitioner herein to suffer three years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and further sentenced him to suffer three months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offences under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced petitioners 2 and others to suffer imprisonment for three months each with a fine of Rs.3,000/- each for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In the appeal, learned appellate judge acquitted the 1st petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. but confirmed conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also confirmed the conviction and sentence against the 2nd petitioner for the offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred. 3. This court by an order dated 21-2-2011 dismissed the revision by modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act to the period already undergone and against that order, the de facto complainant moved Honourable Supreme Court of India and the Honourable Supreme Court remitted back the case to determine the quantum of punishment. Honoruable Supreme Court gave opportunity to the petitioners herein to file a reply with regard to enhancement of punishment and accordingly, reply affidavit is filed. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The main argument of the advocate for petitioners is that de facto complainant after obtaining divorce on 12-5-2007, she is living separately and she also remarried and the first petitioner has already suffered mental agony for the last 8 years because of this case and also sustained both physical and mental agony and financial loss apart from loss of prestige in the public for no fault of them. He further submitted that the second petitioner is aged about 71 years suffering from High Blood Pressure, allergic bronchitis and diabetes and he met with an accident and a steel rod is placed in his leg and it renders him difficult to walk and that the first petitioner on account of his employment, he will be going to the places like Hyderabad and Bangalaore and his old parents have to stay back at Tirupati, which would cause lot of inconvenience to him. 6. He further submitted that section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act though prescribe minimum sentence of five years, but discretion is given to the Magistrate to reduce the same by recording reasons and the trial court before imposing sentence questioned the accused and after considering the representation of the accused, imposed three months imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/-. 7. He further submitted that Section 386 (b) (iii) of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with powers of appellate court according to which appellate court has power to alter findings nature or the extent of sentence but it cannot enhance the sentence. 8. I have perused the material papers and also judgments of trial court and appellate court. 9. Honourable Supreme court observed that the trial court was wrong in awarding punishment of three months without any mitigating circumstances to reduce the minimum sentence. 10. Now the submission of the advocate for petitioners is that mitigating circumstances are now explained in the reply affidavit and the Honourable Supreme Court for that reason only remitted back the matter to this court enabling the petitioners to explain the mitigating circumstances opposing enhancement of punishment. 11. Here admittedly, there is no appeal from de facto complainant or State questioning the quantum of sentence recorded by the trial court. As rightly pointed out by the advocate for petitioners, Section 386 (b) (iii) of Cr.P.C. deals with the powers of the appellate court which imposed a bar on the appellate court from enhancing sentence. 12. According to advocate for petitioners, reasons narrated in the reply affidavit are the special reasons or mitigating circumstances to reduce the minimum sentence prescribed for an offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 13. Advocate for petitioners further submitted that the conviction under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be sustained for the reason that the complaint is not within one year which is mandatory. He also submitted that the trial court has not recorded any reason with regard to application of Sections 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act as the petitioners are first offenders and for these reasons also, the sentence cannot be sustained. 14. It is contended that evidence on record do not show anything that A.1 is connected to and have knowledge of taking Exs.P.16 to P.18 Demand Drafts by A.2. 15. But the scope of remand is very limited and this court cannot go into aspects touching merits of the case. The only point that has to be decided is quantum of punishment. 16. Now punishment for the offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act is minimum five years imprisonment and fine of Rs.15,000/-. The trial court has imposed only fine of Rs.3,000/- and it has no power to reduce the fine amount because power given to the trial court is only to reduce the sentence of imprisonment by recording special reasons. So to that extent, fine amount imposed by trial court is incorrect and it has to be enhanced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. 17. So far as sentence of imprisonment is concerned, trial court imposed three months imprisonment and the same is confirmed by the appellate court. Now this court reduced it to the period already undergone aggrieved by which the de facto complainant approached the Honourable Supreme Court. 18. From the reply affidavit, it is clear that since last more than 8 years, these petitioners have been going round the courts on account of this case. The contention of the petitioners is that they have suffered mental agony besides physical and financial loss and also prestige in the public. According to the affidavit, second petiotner is aged 71 years and suffering from High Blood pressure, allergic bronchitis and diabetes. He met with an accident and a steel rod is placed in his leg and it renders him difficult to walk. His wife is suffering from partial paralysis and can not take care of her daily chores. 19. Another circumstances pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners is that de facto complainant obtained divorce from the first petitioner on 12-5- 2007 and she remarried and all these circumstances are special reasons to reduce minimum sentence. The facts pleaded in reply affidavit are not disputed as no objections are filed either by defacto complainant or the State. 20. On a scrutiny of the material, it is clear that de facto complainant or State has not questioned imprisonment of 3 months imposed by trial court and confirmed by appellate court, which means victim is not aggrieved by sentence of 3 months imprisonment. She was aggrieved as the sentence of imprisonment is modified to the period already undergone. Considering the facts stated in reply affidavit and the fact that there is no appeal from the State or de facto complainant, questioning the sentence of three months for the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, I feel that the same has to be confirmed besides enhancing the fine amount from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.15,000/- which is minimum as per Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 21. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of answering the quantum of punishment. 22. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed. ____________________ JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 13-6-2014. Dvs. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.386 OF 2011 Dated 13-6-2014 Dvs ​