A complaint under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, must be filed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 7(b) read with Section 7(2) (H.P. State Amendment) and with the prior sanction of the District Magistrate as required by Section 8-A (inserted by the State of Himachal Pradesh).

Bhawani Singh, J.— This petition, under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, has been preferred for quashing criminal complaint No 63/2 of 1987, pending trial in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class (3), Simla.

2. Briefly, the case is that the complainant married accused Kuldeep Singh on 29-4-1979 at village Baddowal, District Ludhiana The grievance of the complainant is that various articles, detailed in Annexure-A to the complaint, were given to the accused by the parents of the complainant towards dowry before, at and after the marriage, in addition to Rs 6,000 for purchase of T. V. Set and Dining Table set However, the accused continued persisting for mote dowry and treated her with cruelty. Finally, it was on 26-10-1980 that she was forcibly ousted and turned out of the house without any reason It has also been stated that the complainant has now married and despite demand to return the dowry articles, nothing has been done.

3. The present complaint based principally on the facts stated above, has been initiated under section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereafter in short ‘the Act).

4. In order to substantiate the allegations in the complaint, in addition to herself, the complainant produced other witnesses also. The trial , Court, after coming to the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused under Section 6 of the Act, issued process summoning the accused by order of 20-8-1987 and then by order of 28-12-1989, charge has been framed against the accused. Feeling aggrieved by these orders, the accused have preferred the present petition in this Court.

5. Shri H. V. Rai, learned Counsel for the accused, submitted that the present complaint is liable to be quashed for want of prior sanction from the District Magistrate or any other competent authority as required by second proviso to section 8-A inserted by the State of Himachal Pradesh to section 8 of the Act. It was also contended that under section 7 (b) read with section 7(2) (H, P. State Amendment), cognizance of the offence cannot be taken beyond the period of limitation prescribed by these provisions, 6 In order to support these submissions, strong reliance was placed on decisions like 1988 (2) CLR 138, Likhi Ram and others v. Bane Singh and another, 1989 (1) CLR 55, Deepak Kumar and another v. The State of Punjab and another and 1990 Recent Criminal Reports 268, Gursharan Singh v. Smt Gursharan Kaur.

7. Shri Ashok Sood, learned counsel for the complainant asserted that both these pleas of the learned Counsel for the accused are no longer permissible after the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984 to the principal Act, 1961. By this amendment, there is no requirement of prior sanction nor of any limitation bar.

8. in view of the conflict between the Central and the State Legislations, it is the former which has to prevail. Reliance in this regard was placed on AIR 1979 SC o98, M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India and AIR 1983 SC 150, T. Barai v Henry Ah Hoe and another. There is no dispute to far as the principle laid down in these cases are concerned. But, they do not apply to the case in hand for the reason that the amended Act of 1984 is subsequent to the commission of offence which in this case was committed on 2^-4-1979 and the marriage between the parties had taken place on 29-4-J 979. It is not a continuing offence in the present case. It is complete as soon as it is committed and section 6 of the Act prescribes a particular period within which the articles have to be restored to the woman or tbe heirs, as the case may be. The new amendment is not intended to be retrospective in operation, since sub-section (2) of section I specifically provides that It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint. I, therefore, hold that the present complaint has been filed beyond time and is liable to be rejected. Even otherwise, it is grossly delay