Judgment M.P. Saxena, J. 1. THIS is an appeal by Mufid complainant against the judgment and order dated 22-3-1976 passed by the Munsif Magistrate Shahganj at Jaunpur, acquitting Noor Jahan and Mumtaz respondents Nos. 1 and 5 of the charge under Section 494 IPC and Asad Ali, Smt. Rashidan, Mualana Rahman, Iltaza and Smt. Jainatul respondents nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the charge under section 494 read with 109 IPC. 2. THE case arose on a complaint filed by Mufid appellant alleging that he was married with Smt. Noor Jahan about nine years back and she lived with him and performed marital obligations when in 1973 her father Asad Ali and brother Jamil took her away on the pretext that her mother Smt. Rashidan, respondent no. 3, was ill and wanted to see her. Sometime, mother and brother of Smt. Noor Jahan refused to send hen. On 15-3-1974 he learnt that her father and mother were going to marry her with Mumtaz respondent no. 3. Therefore, accompanied by his father and certain witnesses he went to the south of the village Usarhata and saw Maulana Rahman respondent no. 4 performing her nikah with Mumtaz respondent. THE other respondents were present there. On these allegations the said complaint was filed. The respondents denied the said charge and gave out that Smt. Noor Jahan was divorced by Mufid and then she was married to Mumtaz. 3. IT may be stated here that Asad Ali and Smt. Rashidan respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the father and mother respectively of Smt. Noor Jahan, respondent no. 1. Iltaza respondent no. 6 is the father-in-law of Jamil son of Asad Ali. Mumtaz respondent no. 5 with whom Smt. Noor Jahan is said to have married second time is the brother of Iltaza. Smt. Jainatual, respondent no. 7 is the sister of Mumtaz and Iltaza. Her daughter is married to the son of elder brother of Asad Ali. In this manner all these respondents are connected with each other. Maulana Rahman, respondent no. 4, is one who is alleged to have performed the nikah of Smt. Noor Jahan with Mufid complainant and then with Mumtaz respondent No. 5. 4. AFTER going through the evidence; on the record the learned trial' court came to the conclusion that the complainant had failed to prove both the marriages in the manner prescribed and acquitted the respondents. 4, is one who is alleged to have performed the nikah of Smt. Noor Jahan with Mufid complainant and then with Mumtaz respondent No. 5. 4. AFTER going through the evidence; on the record the learned trial' court came to the conclusion that the complainant had failed to prove both the marriages in the manner prescribed and acquitted the respondents. The relevant portion of section 494 IPC reads as follows :- "Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and, shall also be liable to fine." 5. IN order to bring home the guilt to the respondents under this section it was necessary for the complainant to prove that both the marriages were performed with proper ceremonies in due form. Under the Mohammedan Law marriage (nikah) is a contract which has for its object the procreation and the legalization of children. The essentials of a valid marriage are that it must be contracted by a proposal made by one of tie parties to the marriage and accepted by the other provided that such proposal (ijab) and acceptance (quabul); (a) are based on the free consent of the contracting parties; (b) are made in the presence and hearing of two male or one male and two female witnesses (who have attained puberty and are of sound mind, and who are Muslims where the parties to the marriage are both Muslims), and (c) are made at one and the same meeting. 6. IN the case of persons who have not attained puberty and who are of unsound mind such proposal and acceptance may be made by their guardians. In order to prove that both the marriages were, performed in accordance with the prescribed formalities tie complainant examined himself and Jan Mohammad (PW 2), Sham Shul Haq (PW 3), Mohd. Ishaq (PW 4), Lal Mohd. (PW 5) and Yakub (PW 6). Out of them Yakub is the father and Jan Mohammad is his sister's husband. As regards his own marriage with Smt. Noor Jahan he stated that he was married with her about nine years back in the customary manner. The custom included! offerings and dowery. Ishaq (PW 4), Lal Mohd. (PW 5) and Yakub (PW 6). Out of them Yakub is the father and Jan Mohammad is his sister's husband. As regards his own marriage with Smt. Noor Jahan he stated that he was married with her about nine years back in the customary manner. The custom included! offerings and dowery. The nikah was performed in the evening and then Sml Noor Jahan went to his house and performed marital obligations. He did not, say a word about the proposal and acceptance, free consent of the parties, presence of two witnesses at the time of offer and acceptance and that they wens made at the same meeting. Similarly Jan Mohd. (PW 2) 'Shamshul Haq (PW 3)? Lal Mohd. (PW 5) and Yakub (PW 6) simply gave out that Mufid was married with Smt. Noor Jahan in the customery manner. According to Shamshul Haq (PW 3) there was nikah, display of fire works and a feast. Mufid gave ornaments and other articles as presentation to Smt. Noor Jahan. Even he did riot say a word about the aforesaid formalities. 7. LAL Mohd. (PW 5) did not even give out as to who had performed the nikah of Mufid with Smt. Noor Jahan. According to him the Mehar was also settled. 8. YAKUB (PW 6) was inclined to say that Rs. 151/- were settled as Mehar and the nikah was performed according to the custom. It would thus be clear that none of the aforesaid witnesses said anything about the essential formalities required for a valid muslim marriage. It could not be upheld simply because Mufid and Smt. Noor Jahan lived as husband and wife. As regards the marriage of Smt. Noor Jahan with Mumtaz also none of the witnesses said a word about the aforesaid ceremonies. It would thus be clear that the complainant and his witnesses failed miserably to prove that required formalities were gone into in connection with the two marriages. 9. THE Learned counsel for the complainant has banked considerably on the statements of Mumtaz and Smt. Noor Jahan respondents who gave out that they were married after the divorce by Mufid complainant. It is urged that the second marriage was proved by their admission. 9. THE Learned counsel for the complainant has banked considerably on the statements of Mumtaz and Smt. Noor Jahan respondents who gave out that they were married after the divorce by Mufid complainant. It is urged that the second marriage was proved by their admission. In the case of Kanwal Ram v. THE Himanchal Pradesh Administration, AIR 1966 SC 614 it was held that the second marriage must be proved as required by the personal law of the parties. If the essential ceremonies are not proved, conviction for bigamy is not justified. It was further held that; admission of accused is not enough. It was reiterated in the case of Smt. Priya Bala Ghose v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh AIR 1971 SC 1153 wherein it was; held that mere admission by accused that he had contracted second marriage is not enough. It must be proved that required formalities and ceremonies were gone into. Therefore, much capital cannot be made out of the statements of Mumtaz and Smt. Noor Jahan. 10. SINCE the marriage of Smt. Noor Jahan. with Mufid was not legally proved it was not necessary to go into the merit of the question whether she was divorced by him or not. As both the marriages were not legally proved the respondents could not be held guilty of bigamy and the learned Munsif was right in acquitting them. 11. IN the result the appeal has mo force and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.