( 1 ) THE complainant has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 1965 against the acquittal of A-2, A-4, A-5. A-6, and A-8 by the Judicial Ilnd Class Magistrate, Tirupati, in C. C. No. 91 of 1963 on his file. Crl. R. C. No. 470 of 1964 is preferred by A-l and A-3 against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. Chittoor. confirming the convictions and sentences awarded to them by the said Magistrate in the same case.

( 2 ) MR. Chenna Kesava Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contended that the prosecution has not established the factum of valid marriage, and that the ceremonies required to be gone through by the couple have not been gone through, and, therefore, there is no solemnization of marriage between A-l and A-2 and hence the petitioners (A-l and A-3) are entitled to an acquittal

( 3 ) A-L la the bridegroom and A-2 (since acquitted) is the bride. A-3 is the father of the bride. P. W. 5 is the priest who officiated at the marriage of A-l and A-2. He deposed that he solemnized the marriage between 11 a. m. and 1-20 p. m. , and that A-l tied a Tali to A-2. He was not aware who performed the Kanya Danam. but he identified the person