JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-petitioner Umrao was convicted under Section 494 IPC and the other accused petitioner Heeralal was convicted under Section 494 read with Section 109 IPC by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh Bas and each of them was sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-, or in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month's rigorous imprisonment. Each of them preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Kishangarh Bas and the learned Judge under his judgment dated June 14, 1985, dismissed the appeal both in respect of conviction and sentence. The present revision petition has been preferred against the aforesaid judgment. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that one Smt. Lila Bai filed a complaint against the accused petitioners on June 12, 1974 in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh Bas Distt. Alwar under Section 494 IPC read with Section 109 IPC wherein a case was set up that her marriage with the accused-petitioner No 1 took place in accordance with Hindu rites about 15 years age in village Kharila Teh. Kishangarh Bas Distt. Alwar, For a period of about 10 years after the marriage, they lived as Husband & Wife and two daughters, namely Prem and Jadiya were born out of the wedlock. But after the birth of Jadiya the behaviour of the accused-petitioner No. 1 Umrao with Lila Bai changed and about three years prior to the filing of the complaint, two days prior to Sankranti, she was turned out of the house and efforts to take her back were not succeeded. As per the case of the complainant, she was dragted by the accused-non-petitioner No. 1 During the subsistence of marriage with the complainant, the accused-petitioner. No. 1 is said to have married on April 13, 1974, the daughter of Heeralal, accused petitioner No. 2 which had knowledge that the complainant was the duly married wife of the accused petitioner No. 1 and the marriage was still subsisting. No. 1 is said to have married on April 13, 1974, the daughter of Heeralal, accused petitioner No. 2 which had knowledge that the complainant was the duly married wife of the accused petitioner No. 1 and the marriage was still subsisting. She had come to know about the intention of accused petitioner No. 1 of marrying again and before marriage a notice was given through advocate on April 27, 1974 asking the accused-petitioner No. 1 Umrao to desist from marrying again during the subsistence of his marriage with the complainant, but it had no effect, and the accused-petitioner contracted second marriage with the daughter of the accused petitioner No. 2 and thus committed the offence of bigamy. 3. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and the evidence of prosecution was recorded. Thereafter, each of the accused-petitioners was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. So far as the accused-petitioner Umrao is concerned he came out with a plea that the complainant was living with her father of her own free-will and that he did not contract the second marriage. He further stated that Sultan father of Lila Bai had no other issue and he wants to keep the accused-petitioner No. 1 Umrao as 'Ghar Janwai' and the accused-petitioner No. 1 did not want to live with them and therefore a false case has been lodged against him. So far as the case that accused-petitioner No. 1 had married Daryai, daughter of accused-petitioner No. 2, Heeralal is concerned, Heera Lal came out that Daryai is not his daughter and she did not marry to Umrao. The accused-petitioners examined as many as four witnesses in defence including Umrao accused petitioner No. 1 as DW 1. Learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners as aforesaid and the appeal too was dismissed. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the finding of the courts below that during the subsistence of marriage of the accused-petitioner Umrao with Smt. Lila Bai, the accused-petitioner had married Daryai, daughter of Heeralal is service as according to learned counsel for the petitioners necessary ceremonies of Hindu marriage have not been proved which must have been proved. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that so far as the judgment dated May 20, 1977, of the learned District Judge Alwar in the case of judicial separation filed by Smt. Lila Bai against Umrao accused-petitioner No. 1, is concerned, the issue was not whether the petitioner No. 1 Umrao had married Daryani and therefore any observations made therein to that effect are of no consequence. 5. For the offence of bigamy beside providing that earlier marriage was in accordance with law applicable to the parties and was subsisting at he time of subsequent marriage, it has also to be proved that subsequent marriage was in accordance with law. So fat as the marriage of the accused-petitioner No. 1 Umrao with Lila bai is concerned at no point of time during the trial, or during the pendency of appeal, this point was disputed. That apart, there is sufficient material on record that marriage of Lila with Umrao accused-petitioners-petitioner No. 1 took place about 15 years before filing of the complaint. Sultan PW. 3 is father of Smt. Lila Bai and he states that the marriage had taken place about 16-17 years ago and that two daughters were born out of the wedlock. Even the accused-petitioner in his statement under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. did not dispute the facts of marriage in between Lila Bai and Umrao. Therefore, the only question is whether the subsequent marriage of the accused petitioner No. 1 with Daryai, has been rightly believed to have been proved by the courts below ? 6. It may be stated that in a revision petition the findings of facts of the two courts below are generally not to be disturbed unless they are such at which no reasonable man could have arrived. So far as Lila Bai is concerned, she had no personal knowledge because she was not present at the time of marriage of accused-petitioner No. 1 with Daryai. Her father and other villagers informed her about the said marriage. Sultan PW. 3, who is the father of Smt. Lila Bai, has stated that Umrao had married Daryai, daughter of Heeralal about 21/2 years ago. Her father and other villagers informed her about the said marriage. Sultan PW. 3, who is the father of Smt. Lila Bai, has stated that Umrao had married Daryai, daughter of Heeralal about 21/2 years ago. He also disclosed that on coming to know that the marriage was to take place he had gone to Heeralal and told him that his Smt. Lila, was already married to Umrao and therefore he should not marry his daughter to Umrao, but Heeralal told him that he will marry his daughter to Umrao. Mooliya stated that he had accompanied Sultan and other Panchas of the Panchayat to Heeralal and asked him not to marry his daughter to Umrao, but Heeralal told that he will marry his daughter to Umrao PW. 5 Pooran states that he was present at the subsequent marriage of Umrao with Daryai. A similar statement has been made by Pooran son of Nand Ram. PW. 6, Chunni PW. 7 also made a similar statement. If the learned courts below placing reliance on the evidence have held that the marriage of Daryai took place with accused-petitioner No. 1 Umrao, there is no reason to take a different view than the view taken by the courts below. A look at the certified copy of the judgment dated May 20, 1977 in Misc. Civil (Hindu Marriage Act) Application No. 94/74 Smt. Lila Bai v. Umrao and another , will show that Smt. Lila complainant filed an application for judicial separation against not only Umrao but also Daryai, who was described as his second wife. In that application it was clearly stated that during the subsistence of her marriage with Umrao, he has again married Smt. Daryai and the learned District Judge after discussing the evidence came to the finding that it has been established that Umrao has married Daryai during the subsistence of his marriage with Smt. Lila Bai and after that marriage with Smt. Lila Bai, two daughters were born out of wedlock. Thus, if the evidence as aforesaid which has been discussed above and on which reliance has been placed by the learned trial court as well as appellate court is looked into alongwith the finding of the learned District Judge, it can be said that the recused-petitioner Umrao had married again Daryai during the subsistence of his first marriage with Smt. Lila. Thus, my opinion, it cannot be said that the findings of the courts below that the accused-petitioner No. 1 Umrao committed a offence of bigamy as he married Smt. Daryai during the subsistence of his first marriage with Smt. Lila calls for no interference. 7. It may be stated that the evidence has been discussed above and was discussed by the courts below and they have come to the conclusion that accused-petitioner Heeralal know that Smt. Lila was the duly married wife of accused-petitioner No. 1 Umrao and his first wife was alive and the marriage was subsisting at the time when he married his daughter Daryai to Umrao. Thus, it can be said that he abeted the commission of the offence of bigamy and has right been convicted under Sec. 494 read with Sec. 108 IPC. 8. The accused-petitioners have already undergone sentence for few days. After dismissal of their appeal on June 14, 1985 they were taken in custody and were ordered to be released on bail on June 21, 1985. An offence under Section 494 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which extend to seven years years and with fine. As already said about 16 years have already passed since the filing of the complaint by the complainant, in my opinion the sentence already undergone and enhanced fine shall meet the ends of justice. 9. Consequently, I partly allow the revision petition and while maintaining the conviction under Sec. 494, 494 read with Sec. 109 IPC against accused petitioner Umrao and Heeralal respectively. I hereby sentence each of them to the imprisonment for the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month's simple imprisonment. Two months time is allowed to the petitioners to deposit the amount of fine in the trial court, failing which the trial court will take steps to see that the accused petitioners either deposit the amount of fine or suffer the imprisonment awarded to them in default of payment of fine.Revision Petition partly allowed. *******