Vikramaditya Prasad, J.

1. The trial Court convicted the revisionist for the offence under Sections 468, 471, 467, 476, 420 and 120B, IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years on each count, besides the revisionist was also convicted under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. Against those convictions and sentence, the revisionist had preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court acquitted him of the charge under Sections 467 and 476, IPC and with that modification, confirmed the conviction under other sections and also the sentence. This revision has been filed against the aforesaid conviction and sentence ordered by the Appellate Court.

2. The brief facts of the case is that as per the written report of the informant, PW 7, this revisionist was his patient and the informant had a niece to marry. This revisionist informed him that his nephew (son of the brother of his wife) was a high official in the Central Government and if he so likes, he can negotiate the marriage of his niece with that boy, Amitabh Sen. He also informed that for that, the informant, had to talk, with the father of that Amitabh Sen. Some time after the