Judgment.- This appeal raises an interesting question of law whether the second marriage of a Hindu with a Christian would bring him within the purview of section 494, Indian Penal Code. The facts out of which this appeal arose are as under. A complaint was preferred by one Bonigala Bodemma, claiming to be the wife of A-1, against the respondents-accused, under section 494 read with section 109, Indian Penal Code, with the allegation that on 6th June, 1958 at about 9-30 p.m., A-1 had entered into a second marriage with A-2, the daughter of A-3, in the house of A-6 with the assistance of the other accused in the case, in Manava village. This happened while the marriage of the complainant with A-1 was subsisting and, therefore, the respondents were liable to punishment under section 494, Indian Penal Code. The respondents pleaded ‘not guilty’ . A-1 stated that he had not married the second accused, and that the case has been foisted on him on account of the factions in the village. The learned Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Bapatla, before whom the complaint was lodged, on examination of five witnesses on behalf of the complainant and four on the side of defence, came to the conclusion that the form of marriage that was gone through is not recognised by Hindu Law and, therefore, there was no second marriage. In that view, he dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused of the charge under section 494, Indian Penal Code. Hence the appeal. It may be stated at the outset that the learned Magistrate has not given a finding on the merits of the case. He has based his conclusion on the question of law involved in the case and dismissed the complaint, as in his view there could not be a valid marriage between a Hindu and a Christian. The question which he has considered is whether the alleged second marriage between A-1 and A-2 constituted a bigamous marriage so as to attract the provisions of section 494, Indian Penal Code, and referring to the evidence of the witnesses,so far as relevant to the purpose, he has come to the conclusion that as A-2 was stated to be a Christian there could not be a valid marriage between her and A-1 who professed Hindu religion. There is no discussion in the judgment as to the form of marriage apart from a reference to the religion of the contracting parties. Even in regard to the religion of A-2 he has found her to be a Christian as some of the witnesses examined by the complainant have stated that her parents were Christians. Actually there is no evidence to show what was the religion she was following at the time of the alleged marriage. In the absence of it, the form of marriage, i.e., the ceremonies at the celebration would have had material bearings, but unfortunately as there is no finding on that point we have to proceed on the footing that A-2 was following the religion of her parents at the time of the alleged marriage. The question is whether a marriage so celebrated would bring the accused within the ambit of section 494, Indian Penal Code, It lays down that, “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.” The gist of the offence is marrying during the lifetime of husband or wife. The contention is that the second marriage should be a valid marriage and if the alleged marriage was not solemnised in accordance with the prescribed form or if the contracting parties were suffering from some other disability the marriage could not attract the provisions of section 494, Indian Penal Code. A reference is made to the provisions of section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which lays down that, “Any marriage between two Hindus solemnized 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 shall apply accordingly.” It is urged therefrom that as the alleged marriage in the instant case is not between two Hindus it is not void and, therefore, sections 494 and 495, Indian Penal Code, arc not applicable to the case, Reliance is placed for this purpose on the decision in Channamma v. Dhalappa1. The case, however, does not deal with this aspect of the case. The main question before the Court for consideration was whether an adjudication by the District Court under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act that the second marriage was void should precede a prosecution under section 494, Indian Penal Code. It was held therein that no such adjudication was necessary. Similarly, the other rulings cited by the learned Advocate in M.S. David v. Sudha2, and Emperor v. Antony3, deal with cases when the provisions of section 494, Indian Penal Code, were not applicable to Hindus, i.e., the rule of monogamy and prohibition of polygamy was not in force. In the instant case, there is no question of conversion. It is not the case of anybody that A-1 had renounced his religion and was converted to Christianity, The rulings cited, therefore, do not seem to have any application. The short question under consideration is whether the word ‘married’ in section 494, Indian Penal Code, contemplates the solemnization of marriage in accordance with the prescribed form and mode of marriage or the taking of second wife or husband in the life-time of the first wife or husband. On a plain reading of the section and consideration of the idea behind the legislation it appears to be that what is prohibited is the taking of the second spouse in the life-time of the first spouse. If the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the husband is accepted, it would amount to this that a Hindu husband or wife would be able to take a second wife or husband professing a different religion without exposing him or her to the liability imposed by the section. That could not obviously be the intention of the legislation. I am inclined to accept the interpretation of section 494, Indian Penal Code, as elucidated in Mt. Pyari v. Faqir Chand4, wherein it has been laid down that “The expression ‘marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, merely means that the person who marries a second time during the life of his or her first spouse would be punished under section 494 only if such second marriage is not recognised by the personal law by which he or she is governed. The section does not require that the second marriage with the person concerned must otherwise be valid according to law.” In that view, the acquittal of the respondents on the question of law does not seem to be correct. The appeal is accordingly allowed setting aside the order of acquittal directing the Magistrate to proceed with the case on merits. A.S.R. ----- Acquittal set aside; matter remitted.