A.M.BHATTACHARJEE, J. - (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 marriage undoubtedly applies". In 1947, the Privy Council in Kashi Nath v. Bhagwan Das, AIR 1947 Privy Council 168, referred to and reaffirmed what it declared in Inderun . And in 1962, the Supreme Court in Veerappa v. Michael, Supreme Court 913 at 945, referred to Mouji Lal and ruled that "where it is proved that the marriage was performed infact, the Court will also presume that the necessary ceremonies have been performed".
(3.) This impressive array of binding authorities should lead one to conclude that in any proceeding involving the question-relating to the validity of a marriage in the sense as to whether the ceremonies necessary to constitute the marriage were performed, the proof of the fact of going through a form of marriage would lead to the presumption that the ceremonies necessary to constitute such marriage were also performed. One would have also been inclined to think that there should be no good reasons as to why such a presumption cannot be raised and acted upon in prosecutions for bigamy also.;