- (1.) V. P. Mathur, J. This revision was taken up for final hearing after the revision of the list. The opposite parties were represented by Mr. R. K. Srivastava, Mr. P. P. Srivastava and Mr. A. Prakash Advocates, Illness slips have been sent on behalf of Mr. R. K Srivastava, and Mr. A. Prakash, Mr, P. P. Srivastava, is also absent.
(2.) I have gone through the judgment of the learned IVth Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge, Bareilly and also the judgment of the learned Munsif Magistrate Haweli, Bareilly. The learned Magistrate Mr. S. Z. Siddiqui, Munsif Magistrate, Haweli, Bareilly directed an order of discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that there was no evidence to prove that the accused-revisionist has remarried with Smt. Pushpa Rani. He was also of the view that the evidence of the petitioner Smt. Pushpa Gupta and her father Dorilal was not sufficient for framing a charge. It appears that the complainant had placed on the record of the court below a certified copy of the statement made on 21-10-1974 by Chandra Prakash Gupta himself before the Judicial Magistrate Bareilly in Criming Case No. 1442 under Section 368 I. P. C. This case related to police station Kotwali, Bareilly and in that statement he has clearly stated that his marriage took place on 5-6-1971 and a daughter was born from this wedlock but after about two years he deserted his wife and remarried with Smt. Pushpa Rani on 25-6-1974. This was clearly an admission of the party to the proceedings and a certified copy of the statement was sufficient at the stage of the framing of the charge. The original could at any time be summoned. Of course, an admission can always be explained but that opportunity could arise only after a charge had been framed. The learned Magistrate was not justified in passing the impugned order dated 25o-1982 and in my opinion the order passed by the IVth Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge dated 18-H-1982 was perfectly justified and correct order. This revision thus has no force and is hereby dismissed.
(3.) SO far as Section 50 of the Evidence Act is concerned, it has no application to the facts of the present case. The Statement of the husband is not the statement of a person who as a member of the family or otherwise has special means of knowledge. Let a copy of this order go to the Munsif Magistrate, Haweli, Bareilly in connection with case No. 168 of 1982 and in the light of the judg ment of the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly,. dated 18-11-82 he shall proceed with the determination of the matter as directed. Revision dismissed. .;