JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J —By way of this revision, the accused petitioners have approached this Court for challenging the order dated 31.10.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bikaner accepting the revision filed by the respondent Balli Devi and setting aside the order dated 28.11.2014 passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT Act Cases) , Bikaner in Cr.Case No.133/2014 whereby the learned trial Judge had discharged the petitioners from the offence under Section 494 I.P.C.

2. Shri K.S.Lodha learned counsel representing the petitioners urged that the respondent complainant did not lead any evidence whatsoever so as to even prima-facie establish that the petitioners contracted a valid second marriage by following the essential Hindu rituals and ceremonies. He urged that the complainant who was married to the petitioner Bhagirath about 40 years ago, lodged the complaint before the trial court on 5.8.2016 with a bald allegation that the accused petitioners had married each other during the subsisting marriage of petitioner No.1 Bhagirath with the complainant. He contended that the complainant Balli Devi examined only herself in support of the compla