Though the woman who filed the dowry complaint is married to another man, the case goes on after 21 years !!! - UPDATES ..

Though the woman who filed the dowry complaint is married to another man, the case goes on after 21 years !!!


- Justice delayed is Justice denied

- This BRAVE MAN is knocking the doors of justice 21 years later as he is forced to do so !!

- Is this the [DELAYED] justice OUR FOREFATHERS fought for ?

- Is this the [DELAYED] justice our freedom fighters fought for ?

- Why should that woman be happily married and un connected when ONLY the husband needs to run from court to court ?? Is this true democracy ?

- what is happening AFTER men get acquitted ?

- Families of India, arise, awake and know about the dowry law misuse and the rampant delays in judiciary

- Fight for your civil and constitutional rights



After 21 yrs, man knocks SC doors over dowry
19 Jun, 2007 l 1847 hrs ISTlPTI

NEW DELHI:

Twenty-one years after he demanded dowry that led to the bride's family calling off the marriage, a government employee has knocked the doors of the Supreme Court challenging his conviction by a High Court under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

A bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and P P Naolekar, while admitting the appeal, issued notices to the Madhya Pradesh government to file its reply on the issue. The petitioner, Manohar Lal, has argued that his conviction for six months by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which reversed the acquittal order passed by the Sessions Court 16 years ago, was a serious "miscarriage of justice".

In his special leave petition filed through counsel Suresh Chand, Lal submitted that his conviction under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was illegal as under the Act it was an offence only if a person demanded or accepted dowry.

But since he did not receive any dowry as the marriage was called off, the question of punishing him under the Dowry Act did not arise, the petitioner contended.

Arguing that no purpose would serve by persisting with the charge against him 21 years after the demand for dowry was made, Lal, who is an engineer with Madhya Pradesh's Public Health Department, contends that Vijaya Malviya who had spurned him over the dowry demand in May 1986, was now happily married to another man.


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/After_21_yrs_man_knocks_SC_doors_over_dowry/articleshow/2134289.cms



======= one more report on the same news =========


SC to examine issue of dowry demand

19 June 2007

The Supreme Court has decided to examine the issue whether a person accused of demanding dowry can be held guilty of the offence even if he has dropped his demands and has agreed to marry without dowry.

A vacation bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and P P Naolekar have issued notice to the state of Madhya Pradesh on a petition filed by one Manohar Lal, a sub-engineer in Public Health Engineering department of M P government, challenging his conviction and sentence for an offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 which says that demanding dowry before, at or after the marriage is an offence.

The court also granted bail to the petitioner on his furnishing bail bond for Rs 25000 along with two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the judicial magistrate, first class, Harda.

The accused was acquitted by the trial court along with his father and brother on December 21, 1990 but the state filed an appeal in the high court. Single judge of the Jabalpur bench of Madhya Pardesh high court reversed the order of acquittal against the petitioner but upheld the acquittal of two others in the case.

The counsel for the petitioner Suresh Chand and K Shivraj Choudhuri contended before the apex court that both the courts below have overlooked the strong mitigating circumstance in favour of the accused that he had given up his demand for fridge and scooter on May 19, 1986 following intervention by the villagers and had agreed to marry the girl without any dowry and hence offence under section 4 of the Act was not committed by him as he withdrew his demand well in time and stopped short of committing the offence.

The counsel also pleaded that the girl Vijaya Malviya was never examined as prosecution witness and the petitioner did not get an opportunity to examine the main witness in the case.

The petitioner also pleaded that the high court was not justified in reversing the order of acquittal after a gap of 16 years without any compelling circumstances and will suffer irreparable loss and injury if the petitioner loses his job as the survival of his entire family including five small children, wife and aged father will be in jeopardy.

Moreover it was girl's family who had refused to perform marriage and the petitioner and the girl are now well settled in their matrimonial lives and sending the petitioner to jail after a gap of 21 years will not be in the interest of justice.

(UNI)

http://www.indlawnews.com/71E2F30722F931B852030F9A49DF860C

=======================================