D VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. D SANJEEVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the acquittal of the 1st respondent herein of the charge under Section 498 of the I.P.C., by the learned Special Judge for trial of Cases under Essential Commodities Act-cum-III Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad by his judgment dated 30-1-1999 in Criminal Appeal No. 73/98. The 1st respondent and eleven (11) others were charge sheeted by the State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Musheerabad Police Station for the alleged offences under Section 498(A) and 494 read with 109 of the I.P.C. Cognizance was taken by the learned XXII Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad for the said offences against all the accused in C.C.No. 342/1995. Pursuant to the summons issued by the Court all the accused appeared before the trial Court and faced the eventual trial. At the end of the trial and after examining the witnesses under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C., the trial Court acquitted all the accused under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and convicted A1 alone under Section 494 of the I.P.C. The other accused A2 to A12 are acquitted of the charge under Section 494 read with 109, I.P.C. A1 who is the 1st respondent herein was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000.00 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months. Having been aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed against him, he preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 73/98. As aforesaid, the learned Sessions Judge upon considering the evidence on record and after having heard the counsel on either side allowed the Criminal Appeal and thereby acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 494 of the I.P.C. As against the said acquittal, the defacto complainant, P.W.1 in the case preferred the present revision.

(2.) This revision petition will not detain me for long since it could be disposed of on twin considerations. Firstly, that there has been any amount of paucity of evidence to prove the solemnization of both the marriages of Accused No. 1 with the defacto complainant and Accused No. 1 with Accused No. 12 in the case. After having scrutinized the evidence on record, the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge was of the view that absolutely there had been no evidence to prove the solemnization of both the marriages as is required under law so as to bring home the offence under Section 494 of the IPC. The law is well settled that to bring home the offence under Section 494 of the IPC, the first as well as the second marriage alleged should be proved in accordance with the legal requirements under Hindu Law and under caste, custom of the particular accused. Absence of proof of solemnization of marriage of any one of these two marriages would automatically defeat the charge under Section 494 of the IPC. There are no compelling circumstances for this Court to come to a conclusion that the findings arrived at by the learned III Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge are either perverse or suffering from the vice of any material irregularity or would otherwise result in mis-carriage of justice so as to warrant interference of this Court under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C.

(3.) Coming to the second point, the charge sheet has been filed as aforesaid by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Musheerabad for the alleged offences under Section 498(A) and 494 of the IPC. 498-A is cognizable and therefore the police can investigate and lay the charge sheet ultimately if the investigation discloses the case against the accused of trial. What was non-cognizable offence under Section 494 was made cognizable in view of the State amendment brought to the First Schedule appended to the Criminal Procedure Code. The State amendment having received the assent of the President is valid and would prevail even in the wake of any repugnancy between the State Law and Central Law in so far as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned. The offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is cognizable but it is not cognizable elsewhere in the country. In view of the State amendment the investigating agency is entitled to investigate the offence alleged under Section 494 of the IPC. But that is not the end of the matter. There are certain limitations for the Court to take cognizance. As could be seen from Chapter XIV of the Cr. P.C. one such limitation is enjoined under Section 198 of the Cr. P.C. Section 198 of the Cr. P.C. bars the Court from taking cognizance of any offence falling under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code and relating to institution of marriage with the avoid object of preserving the institution of marriage. This bar enjoined under Section 198 of Cr. P.C. is for the Court but not for the investigating agency. Although the agency is at liberty to register a case and conduct investigation into the offence under Section 494 of the IPC, the Court is precluded from taking cognizance of the said offence in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 198 of the Cr. P.C. It may be reiterated here that bar is for the Court but not for the investigating agency. There has been no amendment to Section 198 so as to bring the same in consonance with the State as has been done in respect of the offence under Section 498A by incorporating Section 198-A of I.P.C. amendment brought to Section 494 of the IPC. Section 198 being a legislation of the Parliament would prevail in the event of any inconsistency between the State law and the Central law since both the subjects pertains to Concurrent List. The initial cognizance taken by the Court upon the charge sheet filed by the investigating agency, namely, the Sub Inspector of Police, Musheerabad Police Station, itself is bad. That clearly vitiates the entire trial and the eventual conviction by the trial Court of the 1st respondent herein. This point has not been addressed by both the Courts below. Of course, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, the appellate Court has come to a clear conclusion that the offence under Section 494 of the IPC has not been made out. In any view of the matter, this revision directed against the acquittal cannot sustain.The revision petition is dismissed. No costs.Petition dismissed.