( 1 ) A Division Bench of this Court has made this Reference for consideration, by a Full Bench of this Court, of the question as to whether the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Ayyala Rambabu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 (1) Andh LT (Cri) 73 and by a learned single Judge of this Court in Nunna Venkateswarlu v. State of A. P. , 1996 Cri LJ 108 is good law.

( 2 ) WE have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

( 3 ) BEFORE proceeding further, it is necessary to extract the relevant provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") for a clear understanding of the question under Reference. Section 2 - Definition of "dowry". In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly - (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. " 3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry - (1) 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 fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more. xxx xxx xxx

( 4 ) PENALTY for demanding dowry - If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees; xxx xxx xxx 4. In Nunna Venkateswarlu (1996 Cri LJ 108) (supra), the learned single Judge of this Court has held as follows (para 15) :"by looking to the definition of "dowry" prosecution must prove that the property or the valuable security must have been given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at the time of marriage or earlier to the marriage or subsequent to the marriage. In other words, the prosecution must prove that there was an agreement between the parties where one party must agree to pay the valuables to the other party. Unless the agreement is proved on record, it is not possible to find the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC. "

( 5 ) THE learned single Judge made the above said pronouncement relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ayyala Rambabu (1993 (1) Andhlt (Cri) 73) (supra), wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows :"to bring the demand within the meaning of "dowry" any property or valuable security must have been given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly (a) at the time of marriage or (b) before the marriage or (c) at any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the parties. If there has been no agreement between the parties to a marriage to give or take any property or valuable security or where the property or valuable security has been given and taken, but thereafter further amounts are demanded after the marriage, such demands will not fall within the meaning of dowry and even if all other requirements of Section 304-B are satisfied, it will not be dowry death. "

( 6 ) THE Division Bench, which has made the Reference, has felt that the above law is directly in conflict with various decisions of the Supreme Court in State of H. P. v. Nikku Ram, AIR 1996 SC 67, Prem Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1998 SC 2628 and State of Karnataka v. M. V. Manjunathegowda, (2003) 2 SCC 188 : (2003 Cri LJ 900 ). Th