Chagla, C.J. :- These two appeals and one application for revision and one reference raise the same question with regard to the validity of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946. In appeal No. 231 of 1951 the Sessions Judge of South Satara held that the Act was invalid and acquitted the accused. Government have preferred an appeal from the order of acquittal. In appeal No. 173 of 1951 the Magistrate, First Class, Kaira, also took the same view and from his order of acquittal Government have also appealed. In the application for revision the Resident Magistrate, Mehsana, convicted the accused under S. 5 of the Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100. An appeal was preferred to the Sessions Judge, Mehsana, and the learned Session Judge dismissed the appeal. In reference No. 16 of 1951 the Sessions Judge, South Satara, has referred to us the order of conviction passed by the Resident Magistrate, First Class, Miraj convicting accused No. 2 under S. 5 of the Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act and accused Nos. 3 and 4 under S. 6 of the Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act and sentencing each of them to rigo