JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal arises against the order of acquittal dated October 24, 1979 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sagwara. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant filed a complaint against the accused-respondents on 1-9-78 in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sagwara, in which it was alleged that the marriage of respondent Velji was solomnised on 20-5-78 with Kum. Babbu, daughter of Premchand, respondent. The accusation is that both Kum. Babbu and Velji were aged 13 years and 17 years respectively and their marriage was solomnised by their parents in contravention of the provisions of Child' Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 and they committed an offence under section 5 of the said Act. 3. The accusation against the other accused - respondents is that they promoted or permitted the aforesaid marriage between the two minois solomnised or they failed to prevent it from being solomnised, and as such they committed an offence under section 6 of the aforesaid Act. 4. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the said complaint and after holding an enquiry conducted under section 200 and 202 Cr. P.C., issued process for summoning the accused-respondents. 5. After framing the charges, the learned Magistrate recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of the trial acquitted the accused persons from the charges levelled against them vide the impugned order dated 24-10-79. The learned Magistrate had held that the complainant had failed to prove that the boy and the girl were aged 17 and 13 years respectively, at the time of their marriage. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. M.C. Bishnoi, is that from the statement of P.W. 1 Kantilal the respective ages of the boy and the girl are proved to be 17 and 13 years respectively and the accused respondents deserve to be convicted on his sole testimony. 7. Contrary to this, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused-respondents, Mr. T.S. Champawat is that the learned trial Magistrate had rightly held that the complainants has failed to prove the respective ages of the boy and the girl and so far as P.W. 1 Kantilal is concerned, he has no personal knowledge and no basis has been given by the witness for the determination of the age. T.S. Champawat is that the learned trial Magistrate had rightly held that the complainants has failed to prove the respective ages of the boy and the girl and so far as P.W. 1 Kantilal is concerned, he has no personal knowledge and no basis has been given by the witness for the determination of the age. It has also been contended that Kedar Lal has appeared in defence as D.W. 1 and his testimony has been relied upon by the learned trial court. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration about the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In this case, no documentary evidence has been produced by the complainant to prove the respective ages of the boy and the girl and it cannot be said that P.W. 1 Kantilal had any personal knowledge about their age. The findings recorded by the learned trial Magistrate cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse and in my view it does not warrant any inferference. 9. Consequently, the appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.Appeal Dismissed. *******