P.S. Gopinathan, J.

1. Revision petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No.386 of 2002 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. Second respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioners along with six others (accused Nos.3 to 8) by filing a complaint accusing offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") with plea that on 17-11-2001 accused Nos. 1 and 5 visited his house and put forward a proposal of wedding between his daughter Raji and the 1st accused. He agreed for the same. On 22-11-2001, all the accused went to the house of the 2nd respondent, met the daughter of the 2nd respondent and agreed to proceed with the proposal. Second accused is the mother of the 1st accused. Accused 3 to 7 are the other sons of the 2nd accused and 8th accused is her daughter. In return, the 2nd respondent and others went to the house of the accused and they agreed for proceeding with the proposal of wedding. On 16-12-2001, at the house of the 2nd respondent there was an engagement, wherein relatives and friends of both families attended and decided to conduct the wedding on 20-1-2002 at the Parish Hall of Ebanezar Marthoma Church. The 2nd respondent offered a sum of Rs. 40,000/-and 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments as share of his daughter, to be given at the time of wedding. Accused agreed. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent made all arrangements for the wedding. He arranged money and gold ornaments. Invitations were sent to relatives and friends. While so, on 15-1-2002 accused 2 and 5 went to the house of the 2nd respondent and demanded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-as dowry in addition to the amount of Rs. 40,000/-and 25 sovereigns of gold offered by the 2nd respondent. They further stated that there were other proposals whereby two or three lakhs of rupees were offered as dowry to the 1st accused. Because of the demand for dowry, marriage could not be solemnized.

2. On the complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence and issued process responding to which all accused, except the 5th accused entered appearance. They pleaded not guilty. Fifth accused was reported absconded.

3. On the side of the prosecution PWs.1 to 3 were examined. Exts.P1 and P2 were marked. When questioned under section 313 Cr. P. C., the accused took a plea that there was only a proposal for marriage and later it was informed through one Pavithran, who was examined as DW1, that the daughter of the 2nd respondent was not interested in the marriage as she had love affair with one Anilkumar. In support of that plea DWs.1 and 2 were examined.

4. On appraisal of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found the accused 1 and 2 guilty under section 4 of the Act and convicted them thereunder. The 1st accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. Stating that the 2nd accused was an old and ailing lady, she was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-with default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. Case against the fifth accused was split up and re-numbered.

5. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, accused 1 and 2 preferred Crl.A.No.187 of 2005. Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Pathanamthitta, to whom the appeal was made over, by the impugned judgment dated 10-4-2006, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, this revision petition is preferred.

6. Heard Sri.Vinoy Varghese Kallummoottil, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, and Smt. Sreena George, learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners took me through the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment.

7. PW1 is the 2nd respondent. PW2 is the President of Puthukulam SNDP Branch. P