JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 5-9-1980 whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioners under Secs. 494 and 494/109 I.P.C. and further issue of process was directed against the petitioners. 2. The relevant facts may briefly be thus stated. Complainant Shashibala is the legally wedded wife of Madanlal. Madanlal maltreated Shashibala and turned her out of his house. On or about 31-1-1980 Madanlal contracted another marriage with Sudheshkumari though the first marriage was still subsisting. Petitioners No. 3-12 abated this marriage. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are Madanlal and Sudheshkumari respectively. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is not an iota of evidence to prove or indicate that Madanlal has remarried Sudhesh Kumari. On the other hand the learned counsel for the non-petitioner urged that there is enough evidence to warrant an inference that Madanlal had married Sudhesh Kumari. I have considered the rival contentions carefully. 3. Before the issue of process four witnesses were examined. P.W. 1 Shashibala naturally could not say anything about the second marriage on her personal knowledge as she could not be present on the occasion of the second marriage P.W. 4 Santokh Singh is father of Shashibala. Though from his statement it is not clear whether he was present in the marriage ceremony of Madanlal with Sudhesh Kumari, however, from the perusal of the complaint it is evident that Santokh Singh also had no personal knowledge regarding the second marriage. P.W. 2 Hardayal Singh stated that Madanlal contracted second marriage in the month of February 1980 but he further stated that he did not go in the marriage party. Therefore, it cannot be said that he had any personal knowledge regarding the second marriage. The same criticism would apply to the statement of Labh Singh. Thus there is no direct evidence based on personal knowledge to establish the second marriage. It is well settled that in a prosecution under Section 494 there should be proof of second marriage also. It was thus observed in the case of Kanwal Ram and others v. The Himachal Pradesh Administration, AIR 1966 SC 616 . "In a bigamy case, the second marriage as a fact, that is to say the essential ceremonies constituting it, must be proved. It was thus observed in the case of Kanwal Ram and others v. The Himachal Pradesh Administration, AIR 1966 SC 616 . "In a bigamy case, the second marriage as a fact, that is to say the essential ceremonies constituting it, must be proved. Admission of marriage by the accused is not evidence of it for the purpose of proving marriage in an adultery or bigamy case. Where, therefore, in prosecution for offences under Secs. 494/109, I.P.C. the evidence of the witness called to prove the marriage ceremonies, showed that the essential ceremonies had not been performed, the conviction of the accused persons on statement of the alleged bridegroom that he had sexual relationship with the alleged bride and on admission of the accused in a written statement that the parties married after the first marriage was dissolved was not justified." I am, therefore, of the opinion that there was no case worth the name on the basis of which cognizance could be taken against the petitioners and process for compelling their attendance in the court could be issued. The impugned order has to be quashed. However, if the complainant so likes, she may request the trial court to make further enquiry under the relevant provisions of law for the purpose of directing the process against the petitioners to compel their attendance to face the trial. 4. In the result the impugned order is quashed.Order quashed. *******