SUNITA SUNIL PANDAV Vs. SUNIL RAJARAM PANDAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has challenged the Order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, dated 26th March, 1999, in Revision upholding the Order of the trial Court discharging the respondents accused in pursuance of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in "Common Cause" a Registered Society v. Union of India, 1996 4 SCC 33 decided on 1st May 1996. The Respondent accused No. 1 was facing a prosecution for bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, which is a matrimonial offence. On 1st May 1996 the Supreme Court decided a case of "Common Cause" a Registered Society v. Union of India in which vide a paragraph 41.(b), Supreme Court observed as follows:

(2.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that the Judgment of the Supreme Court was later on clarified by another Order in the same case i.e. "Common Cause" a Registered Society v. Union of India, 1996 6 SCC 775 decided on 28th November 1996, where the Supreme Court added matrimonial offences to the offences from which the accused would not get a discharge. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Revisional Court ought not to have upheld the order or discharge since on the date of the Order of the Revision Court the accused were not entitled to discharge.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that in the clarificatory Judgment of the Supreme Court i.e., Common Cause, the Supreme Court has made a specific observation which reads as follows: