SABBARAPU VENKANNA Vs. POTHULA SIMHACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision case is against the order of acquittal passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Peddapuram.( A complaint was filed by the petitioner against four persons under S. 494, Penal Code, read with S. 4 (2) of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act (VI of 1949) on the allegations taht the first accused took a second wife while his marriage with the complainants daughter was subsisting, that the second wife is the daughter of the 4th accused and that the accused 2 to 4 actually assisted the 1st accused in committing this offence. A number of witnesses were examined for the prosecution to prove both the marriages. (3) The main plea of the accused was that the complaint was incompetent in that it offended against the provisions of S. 198, Criminal P. C., Agreeing with this objection, the lower court acquitted all the accused. THIS revision is directed against that Order. (4) The main point for consideration in this case is whether the view of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is correct. It is urged in support of his case by Mr. Chinnappa Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that S. 198 is inapplicable to this case. According to him S. 198 governs only offences under S. 494 but not cases which are deemed to be offences under that section.The substantive offence alleged to have been committed by the respondents, contends the learned counsel, is one under S. 4 (2), Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act, which only says that party to a marriage void under S. 4 (1) shall be deemed to have committed an offence under S. 494, which means that it is not really an offence under S. 494. It is urged that when a particular thing is deemed to be something it is really not what it is deemed to be.Such being the case the procedure prescribed in S. 198 need not be followed in the case of offences created under S. 4 of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act. (5) I do not think I can give effect to it. If, as contended the second marriage during the continuance of the first marriage is sought to be made an offence under S. 494, surely the provisions governing the laying of complaints for an offence under S. 494 will be attracted. (6) THIS point was considered by Bench of the Madras High Court in -- Srinivasa Aiyar v. Saraswati Ammal, AIR 1952 Mad 193 (A), and it repelled a contention similar to the one urged in this case. At p. 197 of the report it is stated thus :