The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a private complaint for the offense under Section 494 IPC and the sufficiency of evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul, dated 28.08.2008 made in C.A.No.46 of 2007.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the first accused and PW1 took place on 02.11.1999 and at the time of marriage, the parents of PW1 given 15 sovereigns of jewels, Rs.25,000/- and household articles worth about Rs.5,000/- and due to the wedlock, she begotten a female child and thereafter, A1 along with the other accused demanded dowry. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 05.09.2003, A1 got married A7.

3. In the trial court, 10 witnesses were examined and 11 Exhibits were marked. When the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances, they denied the same. The trial court convicted the revision petitioners/A1 and A7 for the offence under Section 494 IPC and sentenced them to undergo two years year Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo 3 months RI. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial court, the revision petitioners/A1 and A7 filed an appeal in C.A.No.46 of 2007, which was heard by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Dindigul. The first appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial court. Hence, this criminal revision.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/A1 and A7 submitted that the prosecution has failed to constitute the offence alleged against the revision petitioners and there are contradictions in material particulars between the evidence of prosecution witnesses and some of the prosecution witnesses had not witnessed the occurrence itself and the courts below failed to prove the offence under Section of 494 IPC and the courts below failed to see that a prosecution for bigamy the 2nd marriage has to be proved as a fact and it must also be proved that the necessary ceremonies had been performed, but in this case, the witnesses have not proved that the essential ceremonies had been performed and there is no evidence regarding the 2nd marriage and the marriage has also not been registered and the courts below failed to see that PW2 to PW8 are close relatives of PW1 and the prosecution failed to examine the independent witnesses and the place and time of marriage have not been spoken by PW4, who is eye witness of the case and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the revision petitioners/A1 and A7 are entitled to acquittal and prays that the criminal revision may be allowed.

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent/State submitted that both the courts below appreciated the evidence in a proper manner and believed the evidence of the eye witnesses and having regard to the nature of the offence, convicted the revision petitioners, which does not require any interference by this court and revision petitioners/A1 and A7 are not entitled for acquittal and prays that the criminal revision may be dismissed.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. The first contention put forth on the side of the revision petitioners is that the offence under Section 494 IPC is covered under Chapter XX IPC and hence, the complainant has to file a private complaint, but in this case, the complaint was given to the police and on the basis of the complaint, the case was registered as against the accused under Sections 498(A) and 494 IPC and it was not corrected and hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate has to proceed as per Chapter XV Cr.P.C and take cognizance, record sworn statement of the complainant and the witnesses and then, proceeded to issue process in case, the court finds materials for the same and hence, the registration of criminal as against the accused is illegal and hence, the revision petitioners/A1 and A7 are entitled to acquittal. For that, the learned counsel for the re