IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1126 of 2009 1. RAM LAKHAN SINGH 2. SANJAY KUMAR SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : - Mr. Gagandeo, Advocate Mrs. Dr. Leelawati Kumari, Advocate For the O.P. : - Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ----------- 02/ 20.07.2009 Heard both sides. Petitioners seek to challenge the appellate order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2006/ 90 of 2009 by learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Aurangabad, whereby the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court under different charges have been modified inasmuch as they have been acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 406 of the IPC. Petitioners were tried for an offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial court on consideration of the evidence both oral and documentary available on record held the petitioners guilty under Section 406 of the IPC as well as section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They were accordingly sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 406 of the IPC and were imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default R.I. for one month. Petitioners were also held guilty under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default R.I. for one month. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence the petitioners filed appeal. The learned lower appellate court - 2 - appraised the evidence brought on record. On critical analysis thereof, learned lower appellate court found the evidence deficient and acquitted them of the charge punishable under Section 406 of the IPC as would appear from the findings recorded at para 13 of the judgment. Referring to and relying upon the evidence adduced on behalf of P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 learned lower appellate court found and held that the petitioners were rightly convicted under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, the conviction recorded under Section 406 of the IPC was set aside. The appeal was partly allowed. This Court on consideration of the materials/judgments under challenge and after hearing learned counsel of the parties does not find any patent illegality in the findings recorded by the two courts below so far the charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned. There is no merit in this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. DKS/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)