K. Jayachandra Reddy and; G.N. Ray, JJ.
1. This is an appeal by way of Public Interest Litigation. The second respondent, Subhash Chander Bhasin, was sought to be prosecuted under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The learned Judicial Magistrate having examined the complaint discharged the accused on the ground that the demand of the scooter made on March 15, 1979 is not dowry within the meaning of Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A revision was filed against the same in the High Court and the same was dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
2. Having regard to the public importance of the question, not only the interested party but two others belonging to the social organisation have filed this appeal.
3. It appears that two days before the marriage, a demand was made for a fridge, television and a scooter. Except scooter, other articles are appeared to have been given. The demand for the scooter continued subsequent to the marriage. The definition of dowry as it stood prior to amendment explains the meaning of dowry thus:
“Dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly —
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or after the marriage as consideration for the marriage of the said parties ....”
The learned Magistrate having examined the allegations in the complaint took the view that it could not be inferred from the demand that it was in continuation of the first demand. The trial court also observed that it was nowhere stated in the complaint nor mentioned that the accused, since he was not given scooter at the time of his marriage, demanded that it should be given now as consideration for the marriage within the meaning of ‘Dowry’. We do not think that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is erroneous under the circumstances, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.