JUDGMENT :-

Dr. B.S. Chauhan and S.A. Bobde. JJ.

Leave granted.

2. The facts and the circumstances involved in the case has shocked the conscience of the Court and we take a serious note that neither the trial Court nor the High Court proceeded in accordance with law rather acted on their own whims and fancies as if the Courts are not bound to follow the law made by the competent Legislature.

The trial Court convicted the respondents under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 1860 (for short "IPC") and awarded the sentence of three (3) years and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and in case of nonpayment of fine, a further sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months. They were also convicted under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 for short Act, 1961') and imposed a sentence for a period of 3 months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 30.000/- (Rupees three thousand only) each and in default of payment they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month of (each of the offence.

3. Aggrieved the respondents flied appeal before the Sessions Court. The First Appellate Court dealt with the case. Relevant part of the order runs as under:

"20. On recording findings in the aforesaid points this Court finds there was no legally acceptable evidence for convicting A-1 for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC and A-3 to A-5 for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. So, appellants 3 to 5 are entitled for acquittal. Appellants 1 and 2 arc liable for punishment only under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act for having accepted three Demand Drafts and not explaining the same though burden Is on them as per Section 8-A.

21. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. 1st appellant is acquitted on the charge under Section 498-A, IPC, but his conviction for the under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act is confirmed including the sentence the conviction of 2nd appellant under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act is confirmed including the sentence the appeal is allowed with regard to the appellants 3 to 5 and sentence imposed on them is set aside. The fine amount paid by them shall be refunded after appeal time. The fine amount paid by 1st appellant for the offence under Section 498-A. IPC shall be refunded to him after appeal time."

4. Thus, conviction and sentence of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 3 of the Act. 1961 was maintained, however, they were acquitted for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Act 1961.

5. In the Revision, the High Court has dealt with the ease in a very Cryptic manner as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents did not argue the case on merit rather pleaded for mercy and requested to reduce the sentence taking a lenient view. The High Court reduced the sentence to 4 days as the said sentence had already been served/undergone by them.

6. I knee, this appeal by the complainant appellant Sarvarala Sai Sree.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. So far as the conviction of the respondent under Section 3 of the Act, 1961 is concerned, there is no reason for us to interfere with the same. Thus, the question remains restricted only to the quantum of punishment Section 3 of the Act, 1961 reads as under :

"3. penalty for giving or taking dowry.-(l) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with Imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years and with the fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more.

Provided that the Court, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a tern of less than five years." (Emphasis added)

8. In the instant case, the minimum sentence fixed by the Legislature is five years, however, the Court in an appropr