JUDGMENT

PRADIP MOHANTY, J. : This revision is directed against the order dated 27.04.2005 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.21 of 2004 by the S.D.J.M., Khurda.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the present opposite party No.1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance as against the petitioner before the S.D.J.M., Khurda in Crl.Misc. Case No.21 of 2004. The present petitioner, who was the opposite party in the said proceeding, appeared and filed his show cause. In the show cause he denied his marriage with opposite party No.1 and paternity of the child, i.e., opposite party No.2 in the instant revision. After record¬ing the evidence of both the parties, a petition was filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 on 26.02.2004 to accept the birth certificate of the child as a public document and to mark as exhibit. Objection was filed on behalf of the present petitioner wherein the petitioner took a specific plea that since the docu¬ment was not produced during the examination of the petitioner, the same cannot be marked as exhibit unless a chance is given to the petitioner to have his say against the same. After hearing the parties, learned S.D.J.M. by order dated 27.04.2005 allowed the prayer of opposite party No.1, accepted the document as a public document and marked it as Ext.1.

3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the birth certificate has been obtained by practising fraud. The birth certificate is a secondary document unless the birth register is proved. The birth certificate cannot be considered as a public document without any formal proof. He further submitted that the entry in the birth register has been tampered with. The Court below should have called for the birth register and consid¬ered the genuineness of the certificate, but without doing so it erroneously accepted the same as a public document. In support of his submissions, he relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Vanajakshamma v. P. Gopala Krishna, AIR 1970 Mysore 305.

4. Mr. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties contended that the birth certificate is a public document issued under Section 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The document has its statutory value. The birth cer¬tificate being prepared by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, who is a public servant in due discharge of the duties under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, is a public document as prescribed under Section 74 of the Evidence Act. He further submitted that the burden lies on the petitioner himself to prove the allegation by leading cogent evidence. Therefore, the learned S.D.J.M. has committed no illegality or error of law calling for interference by this Court. Learned counsel for the opposite parties in support of his contention relied upon the cases of this Court in Smt. Pravasini Jena v. Smt. Mayarani Biswas, 100 (2005) CLT 501, and Ahalya Mangaraj v. State of Orissa, 2006 (II) OLR 411.

5. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the birth certificate is a public document and, if so, whether formal proof of the same is necessary. Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act says which documents are public documents. For better apprecia¬tion, Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act is quoted below :

“74. Public documents - The following documents are public documents:

(1) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts-

(i) of the sovereign authority.

(ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and

(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and execu¬tive, of any part of India or of the Common wealth, or of a foreign country.

2) Public records kept in any State of private documents.”

The birth certificate is the extract of the register of births and deaths maintained by the Health Centre. The entry is relating to the live birth. The register is maintained in Form No.11 in accordance with Rule 13 of the Orissa Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1970.