HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL. REVISION CASE No. 236 OF 2003 Friday, the Fifth Day of July, Two Thousand and Ten Between A. Hygreevarao Petitioner AND Behara Sreenivasarao Patnaik and others Respondents ORAL ORDER: This Revision is filed by the complainant stating that the court below found the second respondent guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but, however, due to inadvertence did not order refund of the dowry amount in favour of the petitioner. The brief facts are that the daughter of the petitioner herein, who is wife of the first respondent herein, was found dead and as the death had happened otherwise than under normal circumstances, within a span of seven years of her marriage, on the basis of the report given by the petitioner herein, a case in Cr. No. 126 of 1997 has been registered and after investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondents 1 to 3 herein for the offences under Sec. 304-B, 498-A and 406 IPC and Sec. 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam, by his judgment dated 22.11.2002 in Sessions Case No.113 of 1998, while holding that the husband and mother-in-law are not guilty of any of the offences for which they were charged, found father-in-law i.e. the second respondent herein guilty of the offence punishable under 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1.00 lakhs, in default of payment thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two years. As stated supra, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when once the second respondent is found guilty for the offence under Sec. 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, automatically, the court below ought to have ordered refund of the dowry amount, as provided under Sec. 6 of the said Act. However, learned counsel for the second respondent herein submits that against the said judgment dated 22.11.2002 in Sessions Case No.113 of 1998, convicting the second respondent for the offence under Sec. 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, he has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1318 of 2002. Similarly, the State also, questioning the acquittal of the respondents 1 and 3 herein, filed Criminal Appeal No. 1043 of 2003 and this court vide its common judgment dated 14.3.2007 allowed the appeal filed by the second respondent herein setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against him, thus acquitting him of the charge for the offence under Sec. 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In so far as the Criminal Appeal filed by the State is concerned, this court dismissed the same. In the light of these facts, this Revision Case cannot be entertained. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case fails and is accordingly dismissed. _____________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada August 5, 2010 MAS