EMPEROR Vs. ATMARAM NARAYAN PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision against an order passed by the Additional Resident Magistrate, Thana, by which he convicted the accused under Section 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Bigamous Marriage Act, 1946, read with Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced him to one day's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10.

(2.) APPLICANT No.1 along with three others were tried by the Additional Resident Magistrate, Thana. The applicant was charged with having married accused No.2 while the first marriage was subsisting. Accused No.3 was the father of the applicant and accused No, 4 was the brother-in-law of accused No.2. The father of the applicant and the brother-in-law of accused No.2 were charged with having aided and abetted in the solemnisation of the marriage. The learned Magistrate convicted all the four accused, and there was an appeal from his decision to the Court of Session, and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. From that decision only the applicant who was accused No.1 has come in revision before us.

(3.) SECTION 107 of the Government of India Act deals with inconsistency between Federal or Central laws and Provincial laws and Sub-section (1) provides that if a Provincial law is repugnant to any provision of an existing Indian law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent Legislative List, then the existing Indian law shall prevail and the Provincial law shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. But Sub-section (2) provides a saving clause and that lays down that if the assent of the Governor-General has been received to a Provincial Act which deals with a subject in the Concurrent List, then the Provincial law shall prevail notwithstanding its repugnancy to the existing Indian law. It is common ground here that the assent of the Governor-General was not received to this Act and therefore Mr. Rege is right that if he satisfies us that this legislation is repugnant to any existing Indian law, then to the extent of the repugnancy this Act must be held to be void.