JUDGMENT

S. Mohan, J. - The first respondent was charged for an offence under Section 494 I.P.C., respondent No. 7 under Section 494 read with Section 109 of I.P.C. and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and 8-9 under Section 494 read with Section 120B of I.P.C. The trial took place before Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bikaner. It was held that the prosecution had not proved through proper witnesses saptapadi to establish the factum of second marriage of accused (respondent No. 1). The High Court found that it was not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. Thus, the present criminal appeal against the impugned order dt 18.7.1978 was passed by High Court.

2. The only point urged before us is that though saptapadi a fact has not been proved, there is enough evidence to establish the factum of second marriage. There are eye witnesses who have seen the marriage. That is enough to bring out the charge. The principle relating to saptapadi taking of seven steps before the sacred fife cannot be insisted upon if as of fact marriage is established. Therefore, the courts below are wrong.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents would urge that the courts below have correctly appreciated the legal posit