Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980


Dowry Prohibition Act

[XXXV of 1980]


Sections 2 & 4— The legislature has taken care to see that not only the
taking or giving of dowry or abetment thereof before or at the time of marriage
is made an offence but also the demand thereof after marriage.

For a conviction under section 4 of our Act, the word
“dowry” need not be interpreted in terms of the definition of
“dowry” in section 2. In that view of the matter we find that the
conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1980 do not suffer from any illegality. We sustain the
conviction and sentence not on the reasoning given by the learned Judges of the
High Court Division in 40 DLR 360 but on the ground that the word
“dowry” in section 4 is not to be read in terms of the definition of
the word “dowry” in section 2 but in its ordinary sense. Abul Basher Howlader vs State and another 46
DLR (AD) 169.


Sections 2 & 4— If dowry is demanded after the marriage then also the
offence under section 4 will be attracted. Salam
Mollick (Md) vs State 48 DLR 329.


Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980


Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980


Section 4 Offence of demanding dowry

Though the accused-husband divorced
the complainant wife on 20.1.1996, the complaint was filed on 13.2.1996 i.e
before expiry of 90 days when the marriage was still subsisting. On proof of
the charge for demanding dowry the trial court convicted and sentenced the
husband appellant which the High Court Division as well as the Appellate
Division held perfectly justified.

Shahidullah Kawser (Md.) Vs. Israt
Zahan Popy and another 13 MLR (2008) (AD) 278.

of possession of heroin
Absconsion by itself in all
circumstances is not a ground for holding the accused guilty
learned judge found no legal and reliable evidence on record in support of the
proof of the charge against the convict-appellant and on the contrary found the
trial judge convicted the appellant on the inference of his guilt because of
his ascension. Therefore the learned judges set aside the conviction and

Monsur All Vs. The State 14 MLR (2009) (HC) 328.


Police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector
has all the powers of search, seizure, arrest and initiating proceedings in
respect of offence under the Am. He is not required to obtain any permission
from the Director General, Madakdrabya Niantran Adhidaptar in this regard.

Liton Bhuiyan (Md.) @ Md. Liton Mia
Vs. The State 14 MLR (2009) (HC) 323.


Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980

Dowry Prohibition Act [XXXV of 1980]

Section 4—

the allegation of demanding dowry with threat to divorce comes within the
mischief of section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and not under section 3 for
which the trial Court is directed to frame charge against the petitioner Nos. 2
to 5 under section 4 of the Act alike the petitioner No. 1.

(Md) (Dablu) and others vs State 2 BLC 413

Section 4—

the offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980 has been made
compoundable by subsequent amendment, there is no impediment in allowing the
prayer for compounding the offence and it is allowed and accordingly the
impugned order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused petitioner
under section 4 of the said Act is set aside.

(Md) vs Mala Khatun & ors 5 BLC 402.

Section 7(6)—

petition of complaint having been filed by the complainant within one year of
the last demand of dowry it cannot be argued that the cognizance has been taken
illegally violating section 7(b) of the Act.

Nabi (Md) and others vs Fatema Khatun 2 BLC (AD) 171.