GOWRI THIMMAREDDI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two question arise in this revision : (1) that the First Class Magistrate, Dharmavaram has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence with which the accused are charged, and (2) that the very act of taking cognizance under a repealed provision of law is vitiated.

(2.) The wife prosecuted the husband and others with an offence punishable under section 494, Indian Penal Code, i.e., bigamy. The second marriage of the husband had taken place on 27th May, 1955. On 31st May, 1955 the wife made the complaint and gave her sworn statement too. The case was taken on file by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that very day under section 4 of the Bigamy Prevention Act, 1949.

(3.) The husband and the other accused raised an objection to jurisdiction and the validity of entertaining the complaint by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The contentions were found against. They moved the Sessions Court for referring the case to the High Court. That petition, too, was not allowed ; hence this revision. The first objection is that by the time the alleged offence took place viz., 27th May, 1955 and a complaint was preferred by the wife, the Bigamy Acy, 1949 had become repealed by Central Act (XXV of 1955) which came into force on 18th May, 1955.