( 1 ) THE accused-Petitioner was convicted by the trial Court under S. 494 of the Penal Code for committing the offence of bigamy and the conviction and also the sentence imposed by the trial Court have been affirmed in appeal. Mr. Balai Roy, the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner, has assailed the conviction mainly on two grounds, the first being that the alleged second marriage has not been proved as the essential ceremonies required for its solemnisation have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the second being that various circumstances relied on by the trial Court in support of the conviction were not put to the accused in his examination under S. 313 of the Criminal P. C.

( 2 ) AT least from 1869 when the Privy Council decided Inderun v. Ramaswamy, 13 Moere's Indian Appeals 141, the law appears to be well-settled (at 158) for more than a century that "if there was a marriage in fact, there would be a presumption in favour of there being a marriage in law". In 1911, the Privy Council again declared in Mouji Lal v. Chandrabati, ILR 38 Calcutta 700 at 707, that to "matters of form and ceremony, the established presumption in favour of m