P.K.Sethurarnan, J. - (1.)This revision is against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Salem in Cr. M.P. 299 of 1987 in C.C. 51 of 1987 which was charge-sheeted by the respondent herein against the petitioner for the alleged offence under section 4(1) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as amended by Act 63 of 1984. The wife of the petitioner, namely, Kokila, appears to have sent a petition to the Honble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and it seems to have been sent to the Superintendent of Police, Salem, which again had been forwarded to the Shewapet Police Station and thereafter the case has been registered on the file of the Shewapet Police Station in Crime No. 314 of 1986. According to the First Information Report, the marriage between the petitioner and his wife Kokila took place on 12/2/1982 and her husband K. Ramalingam P.C. No. 2235, was working in the very same Shewapet Police Station and at the time of the marriage, she was given jewels worth 4, sovereigns and she became pregnant and went to her parents house and gave birth to a female child. When she came to her parents house, her husband also came there and resided with them for about 8 months and as her parents were suffering, she wanted her husband to take her back to his house and her husband beat her and wanted four sovereigns more and also a cash of Rs.5000. So saying, the petitioner took away the four sovereigns chain which had been given already and did not at all come back to the house.
(2.)Investigation had been done and ultimately the case has been charge-sheeted. According to the charge-sheet, the petitioner is shown to have demanded a dowry of Rs. 5000 in the month of July, 1983. During the relevant time, the Act that was in force was the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Act 28 of 1961). Section 4 of that Act dealt with penalty and the penalty prescribed there under was imprisonment extending upto six months or with fine extending to Rs. 5000 or with both. Under the proviso to section 4, no. court shall take cognizance of any offence under that section except with the previous sanction of the State Government or of such officer as the State Government may by general or special order, specify in that behalf and under section 7(b) of that Act, no. court shall take cognizance of any such offence except en a complaint made within one year from the date of the offence and under section 8 of that Act, offences under that Act were non-cognizable, bailable and non-compoundable. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was amended under Act 63 of 1984 and under the amended Act, penalty for demanding dowry Was imprisonment for a term which shall net be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to. Rs. 10, 000. But the amended Act, came into, force only en 2.10.1985. In the year 1986 by Act 43 of 1986, the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, was amended. But I do not find any amendment with regard to section 4 of the original Act. The petitioner is shown to have filed the petition in M P. No. 299 of 1987 contending that the occurrence of demanding dowry is shown to have taken place in July 1983, whereas the charge-sheet has been filed in the year 19S7 and under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the punishment, as it steed then prier to the amendment by the 1984 Act was only six months, and, therefere the filing of the charge-sheet was boy end time and hence the charge has to be quashed. But the learned Magistrate in his order has stated that the contravention of section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act prescribes punishment for a term which shall net be less than six months but which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to. Rs. 15,000 provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to. be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months. As pointed out earlier; even under the amendment Act 63 of 1984, penalty for demanding dowry under section 4 is stated to be net less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to. Rs. 10,000 and it is net as stated by the learned Magistrate in his order.
(3.)In Act 43 of 1986, with regard to section of the Principal Act, which related to receiving and giving dowry, instead of the words six months, but- which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend to Rs. 10,000 or the amount of the value of such dowry whichever is mere the words five years and with fine which shall net be less than Rs. 15,000 or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is mare, shall be substituted and in the proviso for the words six months the words five years shall be substituted. Having regard to the fact that the alleged occurrence took place in the month of July 1983 and the punishment then was only six months and also having regard to section 7(b) of the Act prescribing the period for laying the complaint within one year from the date of the offence, I feel that the contention put forward en behalf of the petitioner has to be accepted. Even otherwise, I have gene through the records proposed to be relied upon by the prosecution in the case and I am quite convinced that the contention put forward by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings has to be accepted. Accordingly, this criminal revision case has to be and wed setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate.