RAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted. Argument heard.

(2.) We find it rather difficult to sustain the order passed by the High court dismissing the revision in limine. The High court failed to appreciate that the learned Sessions Judge has not applied his mind to the necessary ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under s. 496 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High court was clearly in error in observing that there was ample evidence to sustain the conviction of the appellant under s. 496 for which there is no basis whatever. The burden was on the prosecution to prove the factum of second marriage. The learned sessions Judge in his perfunctory judgment discarded the testimony of PWI smt. Kalavati as mere hearsay and solely relied upon the panchnama, Exh. P-1, in proof of the fact of second marriage, there is no discussion at all as to the evidentiary value of the alleged panchnama. In the premises, we are satisfied that the revision before the High court does raise questions which deserved a consideration on merits, and the High court ought not to have dismissed the revision summarily.

(3.) Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the High court are set aside and the High court will hear and' decide the revision afresh on the merits after notice to the parties.