HIMA KOHLI, J.

(1) The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. assailing an order dated 18/8/2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, husband of the complainant, against the judgment of conviction dated 31/3/2010 and the order of sentence dated 7/5/2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in case FIR No.208/1995, Police Station: Moti Nagar under Sections 406/498A/ 34 of the IPC, whereunder the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years.

(2) To encapsulate the facts of the case, the judgment reveals that Smt. Asha Devi lodged a complaint against her husband, the petitioner, her mother-in-law, Smt. Sita Rani, her father-in-law, Shri Manohar Lal Chhabra (since expired) and her brother-in-law, Shri Sanjay Kumar under Sections 406/498-A/34 of the IPC. After the investigations were completed, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 406/498A/34, IPC against all the accused persons. Charges were framed against all the accused persons to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the proceedings, one of the accused, Shri Manohar Lal Chhabra expired. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the complainant, her father, Ram Das, her brother, Pritam Das. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313, Cr.PC wherein, they denied the case as set up by the prosecution, but did not lead any evidence. After hearing both the parties, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate arrived at the conclusion that the complainant had suffered physical and mental cruelty at the hands of the accused and the prosecution was successful in proving the offence under Section 498A, IPC against them. As a result, the petitioner and the other co-accused were convicted under Section 498A, IPC. However, while the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years, the other two co-accused, namely, the mother and brother of the petitioner, were granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and released on probation with directions to maintain good behavior throughout the period of six months. Further, it was held that the offence under Section 406 IPC was not made out against any of the accused persons and they were acquitted for the said offence. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Section 498A IPC, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who by the impugned judgment dated 18.8.2010, concurred with the findings returned by the learned MM and dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was no infirmity or illegality in the order of conviction and the order of sentence. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the aforesaid judgment.

(3) Counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned judgment on three counts. First, he states that there is no evidence against his client for his conviction under Section 498A IPC. He next submits that both the courts below failed to appreciate the fact that while the marriage of the parties took place in the year 1993, the FIR was got registered by the complainant in the year 1995 and there was a long and unexplained gap between the two dates, which itself shows that the complaint was not genuine. Lastly, he submits that the impugned judgment is not a speaking order, but a mere reproduction of the findings returned by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and hence it suffers from the vice of non-application of mind.

(4) This Court has perused the records, including the testimony of the complainant dated 5.5.1995, the impugned judgment, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Before proceeding to deal with the submissions made by the counsel f