Patna High CourtCR. REV./310/2015dismissed

Umakant Thakur And ANR. v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2015-07-02Justice Smt. Anjana Prakash2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.310 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2391 Year- 2006 Thana -null District- PATNA ===========================================================

1. Umakant Thakur son of late Gena Thakur

2. Vishakha Devi wife of Umakant Thakur, Both residents of village Shahabad, P.S. Sultanganj, District - Bhagalpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Sanju Kumari wife of Sandip Thakur (D/o Gaya Pd Choudhary) resident of village Shahabad P.S. Sultanganj, District Bhagalpur, Presently residing at Road No. 39, Anishabad (in the house of Chetan Rai) P.S. Gardanibagh District - Patna. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. T.P. Mandal, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 02-07-2015 No one appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 on repeated dates.

The Petitioners seek revision of the judgment of conviction dated 28.2.2012 passed by the Adhoc A.D.J. VI, Patna in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2013, by which he has upheld the conviction of the Petitioners under Sections 498A I.P.C. and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the period of sentence of 3 years R.I. with a fine of Rs.3000/-, and 6 months with a fine of Rs.1000/- respectively passed by the S.D.J.M., Patna in Complaint case No.2391C of 2006. It has been submitted that the Petitioners are the parents-

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.310 of 2015 dt.02-07-2015 2/2 in-law and it appears that the marriage was difficult on account of alleged behaviour of the husband.

Having gone through the judgments, I do not find any reason for interference. However, considering the relationship between the parties, the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by the Petitioners. The Petitioners are required to deposit the fine as directed by the Court below within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the alternative sentence shall prevail. The fine of amount shall be disbursed to the Complainant on due verification on notice.

With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the revision application stands dismissed.

(Anjana Prakash, J) Narendra/- U T