Ram Das (On Interim Bail) vs State of U.P.

S.S. Kulshrestha and Vijay Kumar Verma, JJ.—Heard Sri Rajeev Sisodia, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material on record.

The bail application on behalf of the accused-appellant Ram Das convicted for the offence u/s 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act in S.T. No. 5 of 2007 vide judgement dated 08.01.2008 passed by Sri Shiv Sharma, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bijnor has been pressed on the ground that he was awarded two years rigorous imprisonment u/s 498A I.P.C and six months'' imprisonment u/s 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. He was also on interim bail.

Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the accused-appellant may be admitted to bail.

Let the appellant Ram Das s/o Sri Thani Singh be released on bail for the offences indicated above during the pendency of the appeal on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned and subject to the deposit 50% of fine amount awarded by the trial court.

On depositing 50% amount of fine by the appellant, realization of remaining amount of fine shall remain stayed.

It is worthwhile to mention that the learned Trial Court ignoring mandatory provisions of Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act (in short, ''the Act'') has sentenced the appellant-accused Ram Das as well as co-accused Chetan (husband of the deceased) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of rupees one thousand each u/s 3/4 of the Act, whereas after amendment of the Act vide Amending Act 43 of 1986, minimum imprisonment, u/s 3 of the Act is not less than five years with fine, which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more. Although, in view of the Proviso to Section 3 of the Act, the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgement, impose sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years, but no discretion has been given to the Court to impose fine less than fifteen thousand rupees. The learned Trial Judge has not recorded any adequate and special reason to impose lesser sentence u/s 3 of the Act, although both the accused have been convicted under this Section also. As such, the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Judge u/s 3 of the Act appears to be wholly illegal, as sentence of fine less than fifteen thousand rupees cannot be imposed, if the accused is convicted u/s 3 of the Act and if adequate and special reasons are available in any case, then recording such reasons in the judgement, although the Court may impose sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years, but in that case also, sentence of fine less than fifteen thousand rupees cannot be imposed, as no discretion is left to the Court by Legislature to impose a fine less than fifteen thousand rupees u/s 3 of the Act. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Kirpal Singh v. State of Haryana (40) 2000 ACC 136 has held that where minimum sentence is prescribed in the statute, then neither the Trial Court nor the High Court can bypass the minimum limit prescribed by law. Therefore, in instant case also, sentence of fine less than fifteen thousand rupees u/s 3 of the Act could not be imposed.

The Registrar General is directed to send a copy of this order to Sri Shiv Sharma, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bijnor for his future guidance.