(1) This revision application was filed by Janardan who was a complainant in the trial Court. He complained of an offence under section 494, Indian Penal Code, read with section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The complainant is the father of one Chandrabhaga who is a minor girl. Chandrabhaga is alleged to have been married to opponent Guna while she was a minor, in about 1953. The complaint was that in spite of a valid marriage subsisting between Chandrabhaga and Guna, Guna again married opponent No. 2 Milibai. The marriage was alleged to have been brought about by parents of Guna, one of whom i.e., father Balkrishna is opponent No. 3 in this Court. Opponent No. 4 Laxman in this Court is the father of Milibai who is alleged to have contracted the second marriage with opponent Guna. As many as 10 persons were impleaded as accused in the original complaint. The complaint was filed by Janardan before the First Class Magistrate, Saoner, and was presented on 25-7-1957. In paragraph 10 of the complaint the complainant had stated as follows:

"That a complaint should have been filed by applicants daughter Chandrabhaga as required by Section 198. Cri. P. C. But under the proviso the complainant is entitled to present this complaint in view of the minority of his daughter. The complainants daughter is hardly 13 years of age. She lives under the care of the complainant. The complainant is conversant with the facts of the case. This court be therefore pleased to grant leave to the complainant to institute this complaint for his minor daughter Chandrabhaga."

(2) After the complaint was presented, the trying Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant on the same day but adjourned the case to 9-8-1957, noting that he would like to examine one Vithoba by way of preliminary exquiry. This Vithoba was examined on 22-8-1957. On that date the Magistrate adjourned the case to go through the record and the case was posted for 2-9-1957. On 2-9-1957 the case was again adjourned to 5-9-57. On 5-9-1957 the Magistrate noted as follows:

"Complainant in person and with Shri Khedkar. I have heard him and perused the record.

Register as a regular case against Guna under Section 494, I. P. C., and against all the rest under section 494 read with 109 I. P. C.

All the 10 accused persons be summoned with a copy of the complaint for each to be enclosed with the summons and to be supplied by the complainant.

P. F. In 2 days. Case for 19-10-57."

That date for appearance was altered to 28-10-57. On 28-10-57 some of the accused were present and others were represented by counsel.

(3) On 13-12-57 Mr. Nagmote, one of the counsel appearing for the accused, raised a contention that the complainant has to prove the age of his daughter Chandrabhaga who had not so far appeared in Court. The trying Magistrate therefore fixed the case to hear parties on this point. The girl Chandrabhaga was actually produced on the next day of hearing i.e., on 24-12-57, and a certified copy of the date of birth of Chandrabhaga was filed along with an affidavit showing that Chandrabhaga was 12 years of age. The matter was postponed from hearing to hearing, and ultimately on 25-1-1958 the trying Magistrate noted the following order in the ordersheet of that date:

"Regarding the age of Chandrabhaga, the complainant has filed date of birth certificate supported by an affidavit. Showing that the age of the girl Chandrabhaga is between 14 to 15 years and her date of birth is 21-11-43. Consequently, according to this Chandrabhaga is a minor.

Defence has on the other hand not produced any document, nor have they filed any counter-affidavit to disprove the above age of Chadrabhaga. I rely on the documents filed by the complainant and find that Chandrabhaga is a minor.

I proceed further. . . . . . . . . . . ."

The trying Magistrate then recorded the evidence of both the parties and convicted the opponents under Secs. 494 and 494 read with Section 109, Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to differe