NAMASIVAYA THEVAR Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER MANNARGUDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision arises in this way: The petitioner instituted proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mannargudi for a direction to the concerned Registrar of Births and Deaths to register the birth of his nephew by name Balu, under Sec.13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The learned trial Magistrate enquired into the matter and came to the conclusion that in his Secondary School Leaving records, Balu's birth date is given as 15.6.1941, whereas in the instant application, his date of birth is given as 13.12.1941 and ordering in the Registrar of Births and Deaths to register his date of birth would lead to the petitioner's nephew having two conflicting date of births and accordingly dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner has come forward with the instant application.

(2.) MR.K.P.Thulasiraman, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the power of the learned Judicial Magistrate under Sec.13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act is to find out whether there had been a birth or death and whether it has been omitted to be recorded and the power does not extend to held a roaring enquiry as to the correctness of the date of birth in support of his contention, the learned counsel cited the following authority G.V.Vijayarangam v. The State Bank of India, represented by the Chief General Manager, Madras and another , 1987 MLJ. (Crl.) 82 wherein His Lordship Nainar Sundaram, J., as His Lordship then was, has held as under: "It is a well-settled proposition that an entry in any public record or official register or record, though a relevant fact under Sec.35 of the Indian Evidence Act, is not conclusive presumptive proof of what is entered there. If a dispute arises over such entry, it has got to be resolved in an ordinary civil court and no one can insist that the entry must be acted upon as conclusive proof of what is stated therein by any authority especially when a dispute exists over the same." That was a case where the bank issued an order dated 10th June, 1983 directing the petitioner therein, who was a bank officer, to retire from service at the close of business on 6th August, 1983 on the basis that his date of birth stands registered in the service records of the bank as 7th August, 1923. But the petitioner, a bank officer, obtained an order under Sec.13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 to the effect that his date of birth is 17th July, 1927. Under those circumstances, the learned Judge opined that the entry in the Register of Birth and Death through a relevant fact under Sec.35 of the Indian Evidence Act is not conclusive presumptive proof of what is entered there. That was a case where dispute arose regarding the conflicting dates of birth entered in the birth register and birth records maintained by the Bank.