JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This is an appeal against an order of the Magistrate, 1st. Class, Khurda, acquitting the Respondent No. 1 of the charge u/s 494 and Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 of the charges under Sections 494/109, Indian Penal Code. 2. Prosecution case is that some time in 1956, Respondent No. 1 Ramesh married P.W. 2 Dhani Dei according to Hindu rights and customs and lived together as husband and wife for some time in the house of the accused-Respondent No. 1. For some reason or other, they fell out and thus Dhani came away and lived in her father's house. It is said that during the life time of Dhani, Respondent No. 1 Ramesh Satpathy married for the second time Lachhi Dei accused-Respondent No. 3. Purusottam Satpathy, father of Respondent No. 1 who is said to have connived at the said marriage with Lachhi is accused Respondent No. 2. P.W. 1, the brother of the girl Dhani with the leave of the Court filed a complaint and the accused Respondents were summoned to stand their trial. Accused Lachhi Dei was not traceable, so the case was split up against her and a separate case appears to be still pending against her. 3. Both the, accused 1 and 2 admitted the marriage of accused Ramesh with Dhani Dei. The only question therefore that arises for consideration is whether the accused Ramesh married for the second time Lachhi Dei, accused No. 3. In support of such marriage complainant examined P.Ws. 5, 6, 7, and 8. The learned Magistrate, however, held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Ramesh married Lachhi for the second time and he thus quitted the accused persons. It is against this order of acquittal the present appeal has been filed. 4. Section 494, Indian Penal Code, penalises a husband if he marries again during the lifetime of his wife in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the lifetime of such wife. The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 has the over-riding effect of abrogating all rules of Law of marriage hitherto applicable to Hindus. Section 5, Clause (i) of the said Act provides that a marriage may be solemnised between any two Hindus provided that neither party has a spouse living at the time of marriage. The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 has the over-riding effect of abrogating all rules of Law of marriage hitherto applicable to Hindus. Section 5, Clause (i) of the said Act provides that a marriage may be solemnised between any two Hindus provided that neither party has a spouse living at the time of marriage. Section 11 of the said Act provides also that a marriage solemnised after the commencement of the Act shall be null and void if it contravenes the provisions of Section 5(i) of the said Act and a party also can obtain a decree of nullity from the Court. Thus, a Hindu marriage after the commencement of the Act of 1955 becomes ipso facto void, if a husband marries during the lifetime of his wife. Not only the Hindu Marriage Act enforces a rule of monogamy in the Hindu society, but it also further provides that Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code shall also apply to such void marriages. Section 17 of the said Act which is relevant for the purpose runs thus: Section 17: Any marriage between two Hindus solemnised after the commencement of this Act is void if at the date of such marriage either party had a husband or wife living and the provisions of Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1960) shall apply accordingly. Thus, even though there is provision in the Hindu Marriage Act for getting a declaration for nullifying the marriage, it is open to a party to take action u/s 494, Indian Penal Code. Special provision has been made u/s 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for taking cognizance of an offence u/s 494, Indian Penal Code. It is not disputed here that cognizance has been duly taken on the application of Ratnakar Nanda (P.W. 1). It appears that Ratnakar Nanda, the brother of the girl Dhani filed a complaint on her behalf an obtained leave of the Court for that purpose. There is not much controversy on this point. 5. The accused Ramesh and his wife Dhani are admittedly Hindus and must therefore for the purpose of this marriage be governed by the Hindu Law. It appears that Ratnakar Nanda, the brother of the girl Dhani filed a complaint on her behalf an obtained leave of the Court for that purpose. There is not much controversy on this point. 5. The accused Ramesh and his wife Dhani are admittedly Hindus and must therefore for the purpose of this marriage be governed by the Hindu Law. In view of the provisions of law as stated above, the second marriage is void and is punishable u/s 494, Indian Penal Code the moment it is proved that such a marriage had in fact taken place. The question therefore arises if in fact a marriage for the second time had taken place, and for that purpose, it is necessary to prove that the ceremonies required for a Hindu marriage had been duly performed. What are the essential ceremonies have been specified in Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act which runs as follows: 7(1). A Hindu marriage may be solemnised in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto. (2) Where such rites and ceremonies include Saptapadi, that is, (taking of seven steps by the bride-groom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the 7th step is taken. Thus what are the ceremonies necessary to solemnise a marriage depends essentially on the custom regarding rites and ceremonies that are prevalent among the parties. 6. The first marriage has been proved by Dhani Dei herself as also by her father, Bira (P.W. 4) and her brother Ratnakar (P.W. 2) which is also admitted by the accused-Respondents. But with regard to the second marriage the complainant sought to prove its case by examining P.Ws. 5, 6, 7 and 9. None of these witnesses has stated as to what exactly was the custom regarding rites and ceremonies prevalent in the caste to constitute a valid marriage. P.W. 5 has merely stated that the marriage was performed according to Vedic rites. The girl Lachhi's father did not attend the marriage. The witness was unable to say the name of the brother of the girl who is said to have looked after this marriage. This witness admittedly is not in good relationship with the accused Purusottam as he had led a case against the witness. P.W. 6 claimed to have attended the phulsabha which is held after the marriage. The witness was unable to say the name of the brother of the girl who is said to have looked after this marriage. This witness admittedly is not in good relationship with the accused Purusottam as he had led a case against the witness. P.W. 6 claimed to have attended the phulsabha which is held after the marriage. He admitted not to have seen Lachhi. He was unable to ascertain the name and address of the father or brother of the bride as he could not understand the language they spoke. P.W. 7 is another witness who acted as the priest in the marriage. According to him the marriage ceremony was performed according to vedic rites. The brother of the girl was about 14 or 15 years and the girl also appeared to be of the same age and it was the brother of the girl who gave her in marriage. The witness could not name the father of the girl. P.W. 9 claimed to have acted as the barbar in the marriage. According to him no Bedi (raised platform) was made for the purpose of the marriage. Then was no Mangala Krutya done prior to the marriage though at the time of the first marriage Mangala Krutya was observed. Phulasabha could not be held due to some troubles. The whereabouts of Lachhi Dei is not known and it is not established if any valid marriage could in fact take place between her and the accused Ramesh. Thus, the evidence about the second marriage is wholly unsatisfactory and cannot be accepted. 7. An attempt was made with the help of a photographer (P.W. 2) to show that he took a photo (Ext. 1) of Ramesh and his second wife. According to this witness at the time of taking the photograph, the accused introduced the girl sitting by his side in the photo to he his wife. The witness came to the box two and a half years after he took the snap. It is difficult to accept that he should have remembered what was stated to him by accused Ramesh such a long time ago. That apart there was no particular reason why the accused at all would volunteer to introduce the girl as his wife to a photographer. The person who identified the photo as that of the girl Lachhi (accused No. 3) is the barber, P.W. 9. That apart there was no particular reason why the accused at all would volunteer to introduce the girl as his wife to a photographer. The person who identified the photo as that of the girl Lachhi (accused No. 3) is the barber, P.W. 9. He admitted that he did not see the photo any time prior to his seeing it in the Court. Nothing was put to the accused regarding this photo which is absolutely a useless piece of evidence so far as this case is concerned. 8. It is well-settled that in order that a person may convicted of an offence of bigamy u/s 494, Indian Penal Code, the second marriage must be a form of marriage recognized by law; vide Sm. Swopna M ookherjee v. Hasant Ranjan Mookherjee and Ors. A.I.R 1955 Cal. 583. In a case reported in Malan and Others Vs. State of Bombay and Another, it was held that in order that an offence u/s 494 may be committed, it is necessary that an the ceremonies which are necessary to be performed in order that a valid marriage may take place, ought to be performed and ordinarily all the ceremonies would amount to a valid marriage but for the fact that the marriage becomes void on account, of the existence of a previous wife. As I have shown above, in the present case the evidence is not satisfactory to make out that any valid marriage took place between the accused Ramesh and Lachhi and as such it cannot be said that an offence u/s 494, Indian Penal Code, has been made out against the accused-Respondents. The accused persons have therefore been rightly acquitted and I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order of acquittal, which is thus maintained and the appeal is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed