MALAN Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code for revising the order, dated the 4th June 1957, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1957, by which he confirmed the conviction of the applicants for the offence under Section 494, read with Section 114 I. P. C., and the sentence on each of them for one day's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one day more.

(2.) The prosecution case was that the accused No. 1 had gone through the ceremony of marriage with one Krishnabai during the life-time of his wife Bayadabai. The accused No. 14 was alleged to be the priest who officiated at the performance of the aforesaid marriage. Accused No. 1 was charged under Section 494 I. P. C. and was convicted for the offence under Sec.494. Accused No. 14 as convicted for the offence under Section 494 read with Section 114 I. P. C. I am not concerned with the convictions recorded agaisnt these two persons. They had preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court at Satara from the aforesaid convictions, an their convictions were upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in appeal .Thereafter, they preferred a revision applicationto this Court, and that revision application has been dismissed by this Court. Therefore, the question about the validity or otherwise of the aforesaid convictions does not survive fo consideration. The present applicants were accused Nos. 2 to 9 and 11 to 13 in the trial Court. These accused were also charged with the offence under Section 494 read with Section 114 I. P. C. on the allegation that they had abetted accused No. 1 in the commission of the aforesaid offence under Section 494 I. C. P. The learned Magistrate held that the aforesaid offence was brought home against the aforesaid accused. The accused went in appeal to the Sessions Court at Satara, and , as already stated, the learned Additional Sessions Judges upheld the convictions and sentences passed against these accused persons.

(3.) The aforesaid accused Nos. 2 to 9 and 11 to 13 have coem to this Court in revision.