MORRAPU SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Criminal Revision Cases are directed against the Judgment and Order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 31st May, 1960, in Criminal Appeal No. 387 of 1956 on the file of the said Court, confirming the conviction of the petitioners in the two cases and sentencing the petitioner in Criminal R. C. No. 293 of 1960 to two months' rigorous imprisonment, and a fine of Rs. 20 and in default to rigorous imprisonment for five days ; and! the petitioner in Criminal R. C. No. 294 of 1956 to rigorous imprisonment for onemonth and a fine of Rs. 10 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five days.

(2.) The petitioner in Criminal R. C. No. 293 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the first accused, and the petitioner in Criminal R. C. No, 294 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the seventh accused, along with five others, were prosecuted in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parvatipuram, in C. C. No. 124 of 1956 on the file of the said Court ; the first accused, on a charge under section 494, Indian Penal Code, read with section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act (XXV of 1955 for the offence of bigamy, punishable under section 494, Indian Penal Code, and the remaining accused 2 to 7 on a charge under section 494, Indian Penal Code, read with section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act (XXV of 1955), and with section 109, Indian Penal Code, for having abetted the offence of bigamy, alleged to have been committed by the first accused.

(3.) The learned Magistrate, after trying the accused on the charges, found A-1 guilty of the charge framed against him, namely, of bigamy, and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.100, and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for two months, and found A-2 to A-7 guilty of the charges framed against them under section 494 read with section 109, Indian Penal Code, for abetment of the offence of bigamy committed by A-1 and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 50, and in default of payment of fine to a further rigorous imprisonment of one month.