ORDER
Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.
1. Petitioners herein were tried as accused Nos. 1 and 2 by the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Warangal in C.C. No. 666 of 1997 for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Before the trial Court the prosecution examined the wife of the first petitioner as P.W.1, the parents of P.W.1 as P.Ws.2 and 3, the brother of P.W.1 as P.W.4 and some other witnesses as P.Ws.5 to 8. Having considered the entire evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners are guilty of the said offences and accordingly convicted the petitioners for the said offences. However, as P.W.1 came forward and filed an affidavit before the trial Court stating that the matter was settled by the elders and that she was living with her husband i.e. the first petitioner herein, the trial Court, instead of sentencing them for the offences, for which they were convicted, took a lenient view and applied the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and thus released the petitioners on their executing bonds for Rs. 10,000/- each to keep peace and be of good behavior for a period of two years.
2. It appears, subsequently, P.W.1 appeared before the learned Magistrate on 11.06.2001 and filed an affidavit stating that the petitioners have again started harassing her and illtreating her by beating her and her children indiscriminately. On the basis of the said affidavit, the learned Magistrate issued summons to the petitioners and on their appearance sentenced the first petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for five months; sentenced the second petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Assailing the said judgment dated 29.11.2001, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the V Additional Sessions Judge vide Criminal Appeal No. 205 of 2001 and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said appeal by his judgment dated 21.10.2003. Questioning the same, the petitioners filed the present revision.
4. The brief facts of the case are. that the marriage of P.W. 1 was solemnized with the first petitioner according to their caste custom and that the parents of P.W. 1 gave the agreed amount of dowry and other articles to the petitioner at the time of marriage. After the marriage, P.W. 1 and the first petitioner lived happily for some time. Subsequently the petitioners started demanding P.W. 1 for additional dowry and other articles and as she pleaded inability, they subjected her to crueky by beating her for no fault of her and even for petty reasons and also by not providing proper food and clothing to her. When P.W. 1 gave birth to a female child, the first petitioner went to the house of P.Ws.2 and 3 and picked up quarrel with them. The matter was placed before the elders, who advised the first petitioner to take back P.W. 1 for leading matrimonial life for which the first petitioner did not agree and threatened to marry again if his demands were not met. Thereupon P.W. 1 filed a private compliant before the court which was referred to the police for investigation and subsequently the law was set into action.
5. It is mainly contended by Sri A. Prabhakar learned Counsel for the petitioners that the trial court erred in convicting the petitioners on 29.11.2001 solely basing on the affidavit given by P.W. 1 and the said conviction is without calling for a report from the Probation Officer concerned and as such the said order of sentence is liable to be set aside. It is his further contention that even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted, there is absolutely no evidence forthcoming to hold that the petitioners have committed the said offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while opposing the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the concurrent findings of both the courts below need no interference of this Court as there is ample evidence available on record to show that the petitioners have committed the offences for which they were tried.
7. The facts are not in dispute. The trial Court at para, 21 of its judgment dated 31.1.2001 gave a finding that the petitioners are found guilty and are accordingly convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. When they were questioned about the quantum of sentence, they stated that the, first petitioner herein and P.W.1 are living together happily and when the same was put to P.W.1 she also admitted that they are living together and is leading happy marital life. In the light of those circumstances, the trial Court with a view to maintain the harmony and see that the marital tie is not disturbed,, applied the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. It is also true that it is only on the basis of an affidavit said to have been filed by the wife i.e. P.W.1 on 11.6.2001, the trial Court imposed the said sentences as stated supra.
8. Now the point for consideration is as to whether the trial Court is justified in accepting the said affidavit filed by P.W.1 in imposing the sentences or is it necessary for the trial Court to call for a report from the probation officer concerned?
9. Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act deals with the power of the Court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct. From the above provision it is clear that if the court has formed the opinion that it is expedient to release the offenders on probation for their good conduct, having regard to the circumstances of the case, in a circumstance of this nature it is definitely expedient to apply the said provision i.e. Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly the trial Court applied the said provision and as provided under Section 4(3)(1) of the said Act, the trial Court also passed an order directing the petitioners to be under the supervision of the District Probation Officer Adilabad for a period of two years to observe the behavior and conduct of the petitioners and report from time to time. Section 9 of the said Act deals with the procedure in case of offenders failing to observe the conditions of the bond. It is relevant to extract Section 9(1) of the said Act, which reads as under:
9. Procedure in case of offender failing to observe conditions of bond: (1) If the Court which passes an order under Section 4 in respect of an offender or any court which could have dealt with the offender in respect of his original offence has reason to believe, on the report of a probation officer or otherwise, that the offender has failed to observe any of the conditions of the bond or bonds entered into by him, it may issue a warrant for his arrest or may, if it thinks fit, issue a summon to him and his sureties, if any, requiring him or them to attend before it at such time as may be specified in the summons.
10. The words which are used in the above provisions of law are on the report of a probation officer or otherwise. Hence it is not as if it is only on the report of the probation officer, the court shall come to the conclusion that the petitioners have failed to observe the conditions of the bond executed as per Section 4 of the said Act. From the word 'otherwise' it can safely be inferred that the wife at whose instance the court applied the provisions of the said Act can definitely file an affidavit and the court can receive the said affidavit filed by her on 11.06.2001 and act upon that. As per the procedure provided under Section 9 of the Act, on the basis of the report of the probation officer or otherwise, the court may straightaway issue a warrant for the arrest of the offenders or issue summons etc. Hence the question of again issuing summons or notices to the petitioners and calling for their explanation etc., does not arise. Even according to Section 7 of the Act, the report of the Probation Officer is confidential and if the court feels it necessary it may communicate the substance of the said report only to the offender, against whom the report was called for. From the above said provision of law also, it is clear that issuance of notice to the petitioners before convicting them is not mandatory.
11. In the light of the above discussion, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the trial Court without issuing-any notice had straightaway imposed sentence is baseless.
12. With regard to the second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that there is absolutely no material to come to the conclusion that the petitioners are guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, this Court consciously looked into the judgments impugned in this revision. A perusal of the said judgments clearly reveal that the trial Court as well as the appellate court have properly appreciated the evidence let in by the prosecution in holding that the petitioners are guilty of the said offences.
13. In view thereof, I see no merits in this revision and hence it is liable to be dismissed. However, from a perusal of the record, it is clear that the petitioners have served the sentence of more than 30 days. Further the alleged offence took place way back in the year 1997 and the second petitioner is aged about 60 years. Hence this Court by taking a lenient view reduces the sentence of one-year and six months of imprisonment imposed against the first petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act respectively; and the sentence of six months and three months imposed against the second petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act respectively to that of the period already undergone by them. Excepting the above modification, in all other aspects, this revision is dismissed.