JUDGMENT : Heard Mr P K Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner-X, who has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, for short), with prayer for quashing the impugned Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, in Criminal Revision No. 50/2018, whereby the Judgment and Order dated 04.09.2018, passed by the learned Additional CJM, Hailakandi, in MR Case No. 122/2024 was affirmed and upheld. 2. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr D Das, for the State of Assam/respondent No. 1 and Mr S C Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent-Y. 3. It is contended that vide the aforementioned cases, both the learned trial Court and the learned revisional Court have passed the Judgment and Orders impugned by the petitioner, by taking judicial notice of the decision of the learned Sessions Judge, in connection with Sessions Case No. 69/2015. The petitioner was acquitted from the charge under Sections 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short), on the ground that the respondent and her mother in their evidence in connection with Sessions Case No. 69/2015, had admitted that marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 and it was thus held by the learned Sessions Judge that as petitioner is married to the respondent No. 2, no offence under Sections 376/417 IPC was made out and the petitioner was acquitted from charges under Sections 376/417 IPC. Taking judicial notice of this opinion of the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 69/2015, the learned trial Court vide Judgment and Order dated 04.09.2018, in connection with MR Case No. 12/2014, directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- to the respondent No. 2, and Rs. 2,000/- to her minor child. 4. Aggrieved by this order passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioner filed a revision petition and vide order dated 22.03.2021, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, also taking judicial notice of the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 69/2015, has upheld the decision of the learned trial Court, impugned by the petitioner. 5. It is averred that Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (The Evidence Act, for short), was misconstrued by both the Courts, i.e., the learned trial Court and the learned revisional Court. 5. It is averred that Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (The Evidence Act, for short), was misconstrued by both the Courts, i.e., the learned trial Court and the learned revisional Court. Judicial notice of the opinion of a Sessions Judge in a criminal case cannot be taken. 6. The petitioner has vehemently denied that he is married to the respondent No. 2, but on the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge in connection with Sessions No. 69/2015, judicial notice was taken that the respondent No. 2 is entitled to maintenance as she was the legally married wife of the petitioner, and they are blessed with a child. The petitioner has questioned the moral virtues of the respondent No. 2. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has led us through the evidence of the respondent No. 2 and her witness in connection with MR Case No. 122/2014, wherein, the PW-1, i.e., the respondent No. 2 has admitted in her cross-examination that she has not submitted any document in support of her marriage. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the cross-examination of the respondent No. 2’s mother, who has admitted as PW-2, that the marriage between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner was not socially solemnized. She did not know the exact date of their marriage and no Vakil was present during the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. In his cross-examination, PW-3, Asab Ali Sheikh, a relative of the petitioner deposed that no social marriage was solemnized between the parties and he had never witnessed the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 staying together as husband and wife. 9. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, Mr S C Biswas laid stress in his argument that the evidence of PW-3 clearly reveals that there was a discussion to settle the dispute between both the parties, but the respondent No. 2 disagreed to accept any financial consideration to settle the dispute between them. So stating, it is submitted that the evidence of PW-3 clearly reveals that there was a discussion for settlement of dispute between both the parties. 10. It is further submitted that at this later stage, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted that he is willing to come forward for DNA profiling. So stating, it is submitted that the evidence of PW-3 clearly reveals that there was a discussion for settlement of dispute between both the parties. 10. It is further submitted that at this later stage, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted that he is willing to come forward for DNA profiling. Earlier, when the MR Case No. 122/2014 as well as Sessions Case No. 69/2015 were pending, the petitioner had never come forward for DNA profiling nor challenged the paternity of his child. 11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 that this petition under Section 482 CrPC is filed under a garb of revision petition, as no second revision lies and the petitioner has taken this opportunity to file a second revision against the Judgment and Orders, impugned by the petitioner. 12. It is further averred that when there are two concurrent decisions, the Court has to exercise caution to set aside two concurrent decisions of the trial Court as well as the revisional Court. 13. The remaining part of the arguments submitted on behalf of the petitioner as well as on behalf of the respondent No. 2 will be discussed at an appropriate stage. 14. Now, the question that falls for consideration is that whether the concurrent impugned orders are liable to be altered and whether the orders impugned by the petitioner have been passed erroneously by the learned trial Court as well as the revisional Court. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Joseph M Puthussery –Vs- T S John and Others; reported in (2011) 1 SCC 503 , wherein it has been observed that- “The High Court has summarily described "Crime" Magazine to be a yellow journal. Whether "Crime" magazine is a yellow journal is a matter of opinion and not of fact. It is impossible to conclude that an opinion of this sort is a judicially noticeable fact for the purposes of Section 56 or Section 57 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Whether "Crime" magazine is a yellow journal is a matter of opinion and not of fact. It is impossible to conclude that an opinion of this sort is a judicially noticeable fact for the purposes of Section 56 or Section 57 of the Evidence Act, 1872. There is nothing in the impugned judgment which indicates that any evidence was led, much less considered as to whether "Crime" magazine is a yellow journal and hence magazine could not have been relied upon by the appellant in forming a belief that the contents of the magazine were not untrue.” 16. Reverting back to this case, it is not disputed that the learned trial Court as well as the learned revisional Court has heavily relied on the decision of the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 69/2015, wherein judicial notice under Section 57 of the Evidence Act was taken and vide order dated 04.09.2018, in MR Case No. 122/2014, that the learned trial Court had taken judicial notice of the observation of the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 69/2015, as per Section 57 of the Evidence Act and has held that the petitioner was married to the respondent No. 2 and he is the father of her minor child and thereby the learned trial Court directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 5000/- to the mother and the child. Concurrently, the learned revisional Court, vide order dated 22.03.2021, in connection with Criminal Revision No. 50 of 2018, held that- “ix) On perusal of the Judgment impugned herein, it appears that the learned trial Court has discussed the evidence adduced by both the sides, taking note of the defined provisions of Section 125 CrPC and appreciated the evidence by believing the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, further considering the Judgment passed in the Sessions Case No. 69 of 2015, by the learned Sessions Judge, specifying such consideration was under Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, by quoting the observation of learned Sessions Judge therein that,-“So, from all these, it has been established that the accused married the victim. As the accused married the victim, so, it cannot be said that he cheated the victim without marrying her. As such, the offence U/S 417 IPC also has not been proved against the accused. As the accused married the victim, so, it cannot be said that he cheated the victim without marrying her. As such, the offence U/S 417 IPC also has not been proved against the accused. x) Even if no document in support of the contention was produced before the learned trial Court as regard the claim of marriage of First Party/Respondent with that of Revisionist/Second Party, but the fact remains that the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 was believed by the learned trial Court along with PW-3, considering same outweigh the evidence of Revisionist/Second Party side and upon the materials on case record, I also do not find any lapse in appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Court, in as much as, why would the First Party/Respondent array the Revisionist/Second Party in this case seeking for maintenance without any justified reason, was not successfully brought in by the Revisionist/Second Party during trial. 17. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 that it is not on the basis of judicial notice that the learned revisional Court as well as the learned trial Court has come to the decision that the petitioner was legally married to the respondent No. 2. The evidence was also taken into consideration by both the Courts. 18. Section 57 of the Evidence Act, reads:- “57. Facts of which Court must take judicial notice. The evidence was also taken into consideration by both the Courts. 18. Section 57 of the Evidence Act, reads:- “57. Facts of which Court must take judicial notice. The Court shall take judicial notice of the following facts: (1) All laws in force in the territory of India (2) All public Acts passed or hereafter to be passed by Parliament 1 [of the United Kingdom], and all local and personal Acts directed by Parliament 1 [of the United Kingdom] to be judicially noticed; (3) Articles of War for 2 [the Indian] Army 3 [Navy or Air Force] [(4) The course of proceeding of Parliament of the United Kingdom, of the Constituent Assembly of India, of Parliament and of the legislatures established under any laws for the time being in force in a Province or in the States] (5) The accession and the sign manual of the Sovereign for the time being of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; (6) All seals of which English Courts take judicial notice: the seals of all the 5 [Courts in 6 [India]] and of all Courts out of 6 [India] established by the authority of 7 [the Central Government or the Crown Representative]; the seals of Courts of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction and of Notaries Public, and all seals which any person is authorised to use by 8 [the Constitution or an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom or an] Act or Regulation having the force of law in 6 [India]; (7) The accession to office, names, titles, functions, and signatures of the persons filling for the time being any public office in any State, if the fact of their appointment to such office is notified in 9 [any Official Gazette]; (8) The existence, title and national flag of every State or Sovereign recognised by 10[the Government of India]; (9) The divisions of time, the geographical divisions of the world, and public festivals, fasts and holidays notified in the Official Gazette; (10) The territories under the dominion of 10[the Government of India]; (11) The commencement, continuance and termination of hostilities between 10[the Government of India] and any other State or body of persons; (12) The names of the members and officers of the Court, and of their deputies and subordinate officers and assistants, and also of all officers acting in execution of its process, and of all advocates, attorneys, proctors, vakils, pleaders and other persons authorised by law to appear or act before it; (13) The rule of the road 11[on land or at sea]. In all these cases and also on all matters of public history, literature, science or art, the Court may resort for its aid to appropriate books or documents of reference. If the Court is called upon by any person to take judicial notice of any fact, it may refuse to do so unless and until such person produces any such book or document as it may consider necessary to enable it to do so”. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid stress in his argument that nowhere in Section 57 of the Evidence Act, it is mentioned that Judgments of the criminal Court can be taken notice by the Court dealing with quasi civil matters and then, the learned counsel has relied on the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Prasad –Vs- State of Bihar; reported in (2004) 5 SCC 196, wherein it has been observed that- “14. The basic distinction between Section 488 of the old Code and Section 126 of the Code is that Section 126 has essentially enlarged the venue of proceedings for maintenance so as to move the place where the wife may be residing at the date of application. The change was thought necessary because of certain observations by the Law Commission, taking note of the fact that often deserted wives are compelled to live with their relatives far away from the place where the husband and wife last resided together. As noted by this Court in several cases, proceedings under Section 125 of the Code are of civil nature. Unlike clauses (b) and (c) of Section 126(1) an application by the father or the mother claiming maintenance has to be filed where the person from whom maintenance is claimed lives.” 20. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the proceedings of cases under Section 125 CrPC are of civil nature. 21. Unlike clauses (b) and (c) of Section 126(1) an application by the father or the mother claiming maintenance has to be filed where the person from whom maintenance is claimed lives.” 20. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the proceedings of cases under Section 125 CrPC are of civil nature. 21. It is trite law that to consider a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, the intricacies of the evidence is not required to be taken into consideration, but at the same time it cannot be ignored that where there is an abuse of the process of the Court and where there is glaring defect in the procedure or manifest error of a Court of law or where there is flagrant miscarriage of justice, the evidence can be dealt with and the Court can delve in to the entire case. 22. Despite the settled position that the revisional Court cannot appreciate or re-appreciate the evidence, yet the learned revisional Court had not ignored the evidence in toto. The evidence was taken into consideration and it was held that- “On perusal of the evidence on record, it appears that the first party/respondent as PW-1 and the mother as PW-2 had reiterated the version that the first party/respondent was married to the revisionist/second party and she was driven out while she was pregnant and further she was blessed with a girl”. 23. The evidence of DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 was also assessed by the revisional Court and then the revisional Court arrived at a decision. The learned revisional Court has also affirmed the judgment of the trial Court on the basis of the decision of the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 69/2015. 24. It is apt to mention at this juncture that the petitioner had maintained silence when he was acquitted in connection with Sessions Case No. 69/2015 by the learned Sessions Judge, who had observed that he was married to the victim and the victim has given birth to his child, but contrary to his conduct, he has now denied that he is married to the respondent No. 2. 25. In view of my foregoing discussions, it is thereby held that there is no manifest error or gross irregularity or flagrant miscarriage of justice. 25. In view of my foregoing discussions, it is thereby held that there is no manifest error or gross irregularity or flagrant miscarriage of justice. Both the Courts below have carefully assessed the evidence and in addition, they have taken judicial notice of the decision of the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 69/2015. It cannot be held that the concurrent decisions were based solely on the judicial notice of the decision in Sessions Case No. 69/2015. 26. It is apt to reiterate that MR Case No. 122/2014 and Criminal Revision No. 50/2018, have not been decided only on the judicial notice under Section 57 of the Evidence Act, but the evidence of the witnesses have also been assessed and re-assessed and both the Courts below had arrived at the concurrent decisions, impugned by the petitioner. 27. In the wake of the foregoing discussions, this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC is hereby dismissed. 28. No order as to costs.