KAILASH &amp; ANR Vs. SANTOSH &amp; ANR
1. Leave granted. 2. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanwer District, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, by an order dated 24.12.2008, convicted the appellants for marrying off their under-aged son and daughter. The appellants pleaded guilty, as a result of which the Appellant No. 1 was sentenced to sit in Court till rising of the Court, along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; and Appellant No. 2 was sentenced to fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 3. The Revision Petition, which was filed at the behest of the brother of Appellant No. 1, succeeded before the High Court, wherein the High Court has held that since on the date of the commission of offence, the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 had been repealed by the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate would have to be set aside and a de novo trial has to be conducted under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the offence under Section 6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 and the offence under Section 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 are the same insofar as the appellants are concerned. It is true that the maximum sentence under the Act of 1929 was three months whereas under the Act of 2006, it is two years. That, however, would make no difference on the facts of this case. 5. We, therefore, treat the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate dated 24.12.2008, as an order under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
1[ds]4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the offence under Section 6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 and the offence under Section 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 are the same insofar as the appellants are concerned. It is true that the maximum sentence under the Act of 1929 was three months whereas under the Act of 2006, it is two years. That, however, would make no difference on the facts of this case5. We, therefore, treat the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate dated 24.12.2008, as an order under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
### Instruction:
Evaluate the case proceeding to forecast the court's decision (1 for yes, 0 for no), and elucidate the reasoning behind this prediction with important textual evidence from the case.

### Input:
1. Leave granted. 2. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanwer District, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, by an order dated 24.12.2008, convicted the appellants for marrying off their under-aged son and daughter. The appellants pleaded guilty, as a result of which the Appellant No. 1 was sentenced to sit in Court till rising of the Court, along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; and Appellant No. 2 was sentenced to fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 3. The Revision Petition, which was filed at the behest of the brother of Appellant No. 1, succeeded before the High Court, wherein the High Court has held that since on the date of the commission of offence, the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 had been repealed by the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate would have to be set aside and a de novo trial has to be conducted under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the offence under Section 6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 and the offence under Section 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 are the same insofar as the appellants are concerned. It is true that the maximum sentence under the Act of 1929 was three months whereas under the Act of 2006, it is two years. That, however, would make no difference on the facts of this case. 5. We, therefore, treat the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate dated 24.12.2008, as an order under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the offence under Section 6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 and the offence under Section 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 are the same insofar as the appellants are concerned. It is true that the maximum sentence under the Act of 1929 was three months whereas under the Act of 2006, it is two years. That, however, would make no difference on the facts of this case5. We, therefore, treat the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate dated 24.12.2008, as an order under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
