( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks to assail the Order dated 12-5-2000 passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, pithapuram, East Godavari district while recording the evidence of RW1 in MC No. 3 of 1998.

( 2 ) UNDER the impugned order when the petitioner RW1 sought to introduce three bona fide certificates said to have been issued by Andhra Vidyalaya High School, hyderabad, so as to prove that his children are studying in the said school, on an objection taken by his adversary, the learned Magistrate held that the bona fide certificates issued by the Head Mistress, andhra Vidyalaya School with regard to the class in which they are studying and the ages of the students are not admissible in evidence and therefore, they cannot be allowed to be marked as exhibits. Assailing the said order, the present criminal petition is filed.

( 3 ) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner seeks to file these documents in the first instance with a view to summon the Head mistress to prove the certificates later, but the certificates have not been permitted to be introduced and rejected at the threshold and therefore the order is not correct, legal and proper.

( 4 ) ON a perusal of the impugned order, it is obvious that the learned Magistrate placing reliance upon a judgment of this court in K. Laxman Rao v. State of A. P. , 1999 (1) ALT 506, has come to the conclusion that since the certificates in question have been given by the Head mistress of a school certifying the class in which the students are studying and about their ages and therefore the bona fide certificates issued by the Head Mistress are not admissible in evidence. In the judgment of this Court referred to supra, the certificate of date of birth of the presecutrix issued by the Head Mistress of the Junior college, Kagaznagar, when sought to be introduced, was objected to and it was held that being a copy of the entry made in regard thereto, in the concerned register of the school which register answers the determination of a public document in view of the bar engrafted under Section 65 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be permitted to be introduced since the only mode of proof in respect of public document is either to produce the original or certified copy thereof and no other mode of proof is permissible.

( 5 ) IN the instant case, the documents, which are sought to be introduced, are 3 bona fide certificates. It is no doubt true that these three certificates contain an entry in regard to the date of birth of the students also. That will not alter the character of the main document, which is captioned as a bona fide certificate. The certificate contains the other details in regard to the admission number, name, father s name, academic year, class and conduct. The entire information contained in the certificate undoubtedly must have been gathered from other registers being maintained in the school except the entry in regard to the conduct of the students. Merely because the certificate contains the data to be gathered from the various registers, so long as it is a bona fide certificate issued by the Head Mistress, it cannot be said that it is a true copy of the various registers being maintained in the school. It is appropriate here to consider sections 62, 63, 64 and 65 of the Indian evidence Act.

( 6 ) SECTION 62 defines primary evidence, which means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court. Under the explanation appended thereunder, it is further stipulated that the document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document and if the document is executed in counterparts, each counter-part is primary evidence and when the documents are made by one uniform process such as printing, lithography or photography, each one is primary evidence.

( 7 ) SECTION 63 defines what is secondary evidence. As can be seen from this Section, certified copy of a document; the copies