(1.) This is an application in revision against an order passed by the Additional Resident Magistrate, Thana, by which he convicted the accused under Section 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Bigamous Marriage Act, 1946, read with Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced him to one day's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10.
(2.) Applicant No. 1 along with three others were tried by the Additional Resident Magistrate, Thana. The applicant was charged with having married accused No. 2 while the first marriage was subsisting. Accused No. 3 was the father of the applicant and accused No, 4 was the brother-in-law of accused No. 2. The father of the applicant and the brother-in-law of accused No. 2 were charged with having aided and abetted in the solemnisation of the marriage. The learned Magistrate convicted all the four accused, and there was an appeal from his decision to the Court of Session, and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. From that decision only the applicant who was accused No. 1 has come in revision before us.
(3.) Mr. Rege, who appears for the applicant, has raised before us several interesting questions as to the validity of the Bombay Prevention of Bigamous Marriage Act, 1946. This Act of 1946 applies to Hindus and Section 4 declares a bigamous marriage to be void notwithstanding any law, custom or usage to the contrary, and by Section 5 the contracting of a bigamous marriage is constituted an offence and is deemed to be an offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. Secs.6 and 7 are penal sections which penalise the solemnising of a bigamous marriage and provides a penalty for persons having charge of a minor concerned in a bigamous marriage. Section 8 provides for the forum and states that no Court other than that of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class shall take cognisance of and try any offence punishable under Section 6 or 7 of the Act, and Section 9 makes offences under the Act cognisable.