JUDGMENT :

Ratnaker Bhengra, J.

Heard the parties.

2. It is noted that the appellant was not represented either personally or through his counsel on few dates. Thereafter, appellant was noticed and the office notes indicates that notices was also served to him, however, even then nobody had appeared on behalf of the appellant and therefore, Mr. Rajesh Kr. Dubey, Advocate, was appointed as amicus curiae to argue out the case on behalf of the appellant. Mr. G.K. Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant had also appeared. The State is represented by Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned APP.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 05.05.2003 and order of sentence dated 23.05.2003, passed the by learned Additional District &Sessions Judge, FTC-IX, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 511/95 by which learned court-below has been pleased to convict the appellant under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and section 498-A IPC. The appellant was sentenced under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for RI of six months and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of which, he was to undergo SI for 15 days. Further, appellant was sentenced under section 498-