BAGDIRAM Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the appellate judgment dated 23 -7 -1985 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Garoth in Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 1983 whereby the petitioner's conviction under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 200/ - and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month have been maintained.

(2.) , According to the complaint filed on 24 -12 -80 by Kasturibai, the non -applicant No.2, she was married to the petitioner about seven years back. After about six months she was turned out and the petitioner has again married one Yashodabai.

(3.) THE petitioner went up in appeal but was unsuccessful. Hence this revision petition. 1976 MPLJ 600, and Gopal lal's case 1979 Cr. LJ 652. 6. Learned counsel for the State contends that on the material on record the concurrent finding that the petitioner has married Yashodabai is clearly sustainable and no interference is called for in revision. 7. The point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed. 8. In L. Obulamma's case (supra) in paragraph 5, it has been pointed out that it is well -settled that before conviction can be recorded under S. 494 IPC the following ingredients must be proved: -