The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proper application of law and appreciation of evidence in reaching a decision, particularly in cases involving the application of limitation and the validity of marriage under the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT

Sugato Majumdar, J. - Instant application, filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated 11/08/2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dakshin Dinajpur in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2011 confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed on 21/02/2011 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangarampur in CR 160 of 2010.

2. Fact of the case in nutshell is that on the basis of written complaint made by the present Opposite Party No. 2 prosecution was launched against the present Petitioner and Parul Khan. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed. Charges were framed against the present Petitioner under Section 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code to which theypleaded not guilty. Defense of the present Petitioner is false implication. He stated in his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 that he did not marry the co-accused. Through cross examination defense also tried to establish that the present Petitioner had already been prosecuted for the same offence of bigamy and was acquitted.

3. The Trial Court held that the present Petitioner is guilty of the charges under Section 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court acquitted the co-accused Parul Khan.

4. On appeal, the Sessions Judge upheld the judgment and order of sentenced passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buniyadpur in terms of the impugned judgment dated 11/08/2011.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate court, the instant Revision application is filed.

6. Mr. Acharyya, appearing for the Petitioner submitted that both the courts below committed grave error in deciding the issue of limitation involved in the case. Both the Courts below wrongly held that the offence under section 498A is a continuous one giving a go by to the express provisions of section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Mr. Acharyya further submitted that it is in the evidence of PW 1, namely, the de-facto complainant that earlier a criminal prosecution was initiated against the present Petitioner by the said PW 1 which was numbered as MC/222/1978 alleging the second marriage of the present Petitioner, where he was ultimately discharged. Therefore, according to him, the second prosecution is barred under section 300 of the Code. Both the Courts below committed grave error ignoring this aspect of the matter. Mr. Acharyya further submitted that in order to bring a case under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code there must be a valid marriage observing all the formalities required by law. Saptapadi or seven steps before the sacred fire is essential for a valid Hindu Marriage. Not a single piece of evidence is adduced in support of performance of such essential ceremonies. Conclusion arrived at by both the Courts below that the present Petitioner is guilty of bigamy is grave error in appreciation of evidence. He relied upon the ratio of Priya Bala Ghosh vs. Suresh Chandra Ghosh [1971 SCC (Cri.) 362] and Santi Deb Berma versus Kanchan Prava Devi [1992 SCC (Cri.) 65].

7. Mr. Binoy Panda, appearing for the state, candidly admitted that limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is three years. He also admitted that there is no evidence to the extent that Saptapadi was observed by the present Petitioner in the alleged second marriage. However, according to him, there are enough evidence to suggest that there was the alleged second marriage between the present Petitioner and Parul Khan.

8. Written complaint in this case is not exhibited. However, it is in the record that prosecution was launched on the basis of a complaint case by the Opposite Party No. 2 on 08/08/2000. It is the evidence of P.W. 1, namely, O.P. No. 2 that she was married to the present Petitioner on 23rd Jaistha 1383 B.S. as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After 2 to 3 years of