STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PANDYA MANGUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State of Bombay from a judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Katra, at Nadiad, acquitting the respondent Pandya Mangubhai alias Bapalal Shankerlal of en offence under Section 199, Penal Code read with Section 21, Special Marriage Act, with which offence the respondent was charged. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Balasinor at Dakor, who had tried the case originally, had convicted the respondent of an offence under Section 199, Penal Code read with Section 21, Special Marriage Act and had sentenced him to Buffer two weeks' simple imprisonment and to pay & fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for two months. But in appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Katra at Nadiad, reversed that order of conviction arid sentence and ordered the acquittal of the respondent. It is from this Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge that the State has come in appeal.

(2.) The facts of the case which led to the prosecution of the respondent may now shortly be stated. One Shivshankar Someshwar Adhvarya, who is the complainant in this case, has a daughter of the name Sulochana. On 16-1-1953, this Sulochaim was about 19 years of age. Some twelve years ago, Suiochana had been betrothed to one Rajnikant. For some reasons which have not been disclosed before the Court, the complainant Shiv-shanker Someshwar Adhvarya did not wish that his daughter suiochana should marry Rajnikant. On 16-1-1953, Suiochana was married to Rajnikant and the marriage was performed under the Special Marriage Act. For the purpose of the Bald marriage of Suiochana with Rajnikant under the Special Marriage Act, the present appellant assumed guardianship of Suiochana and signed the declaration Ex. 12. It may be noted that Suiochana was at the material date studying in the Sansthan High, School at Dakor. At 11 O'clock in the morning on that day, she had gone to the school from her father's place where she was residing. She was removed from the school and married to Rajnikant under the Special Marriage Act by herself and the appellant making false declarations End statements before the Special Marriage Registrar. The prosecution contends that a false marriage certificate was procured. Subsection (3) of Section 2, Special Marriage Act 3 of 1872 lays down that marriages under this Act may be celebrated upon certain conditions, one of which is that each party must, if he or she has not completed the age of 21 years have obtained the consent of his or her father or guardian to the marriage. It is not disputed In this case that on 1G-1-1953, Sulochana had not attained the age of 21 years. She was between 12 and 21 years of age on that date. Therefore, it was obligatory under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 2 that before a valid marriage under the Special Marriage Act could be performed between Sulochana and Rajnikant, there should have been obtained the consent of the father of Suiochana or the guardian o! Suiochana to the marriage. The prosecution contends that although the appellant knew that he was not the guardian of Suiochana, and therefore, had no right to give a consent under Subsection (3) of Section 2 of the Act to the marriage of Sulochana with Rajnikant, he gave such a consent. This the appellant did although he knew very well that Shivshankar Someshwar Adhvarya, the father of the girl and her natural guardian, was not prepared to give his daughter in marriage to Rajnikant. In these circumstances, says the prosecution, the appellant became a bogus guardian of Suiochana and as such he made false declaration and statements before the Special Marriage Registrar on 16-1-1953 and thereby committed an, offence under 8. 199, Penal Code read with Section 21, Special Marriage Act.

(3.) The appellant resisted the charge which was brought against him upon a contention that he was not guilty of any offence. His case was that he had been requested by the girl Sulochana to officiate as her guardian for the purpose of her marriage with Rajnikant under the Special Marriage Act and that all that he did was to accept that invitation. His further contention was that all the material facts were placed before the Special Marriage Registrar. For instance, the Registrar was Informed of the fact that the father of Sulochana was not a consenting party to her marriage with Rajnikant, the Registrar was also informed of the fact that Sulochana was below 21 years of age; the Registrar was also informed of the fact that Sulochana had asked the appellant to be her guardian and that the appellant had accepted that invitation. The appellant's defence was that in those circumstances the Special Marriage Registrar had not been misled in any manner by him and that he had not made any false declarations nor signed any false statements before him.