The proceedings under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act are executive, not judicial, making them non-revisable under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner has challenged the vires of the judgment and order dated 22^nd June, 2018, passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.33 of 2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, whereby he allowed the Revision Petition, set aside the order dated 30^th November, 2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (5^th Court), Nanded (“the Magistrate”, for short) under Section 13 (3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (“the Act”, for short) and further directed to cancel the entry in the Births and Deaths Register maintained by respondent No.2 - the Commissioner, Nanded-Waghala City Municipal Corporation, Nanded.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a teacher in Madina-Tul-Uloom Education Society's Higher Secondary School/Junior College at Nanded on 14^th July, 1984. Her date of birth was recorded as 2^nd March, 1960. According to the petitioner, her correct date of birth was 14^th December, 1960. She applied to the Principal for correcting the date of birth on 13^th February, 1987. She further sent a reminder on 24^th April, 1988. However, due to the dispute between two rival groups of the Education Society, the request of the petitioner for correction of her date of birth remained unattended. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Principal in the month of July, 2016. She filed O.M.C.A. (i.e. “Other Misc. Civil Application) No.905 of 2017 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nanded on 23^rd October, 2017 seeking an order under Section 13 (3) of the Act for making entry of her date of birth in the Register of Births and Deaths. It was assigned to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No.5), Nanded. The learned Magistrate allowed that application on 30^th November, 2017 and directed respondent No.2 to register the date of birth of the petitioner as “14^th December, 1960”.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent No. 5, claiming himself to be the proposed President of Madina-Tul-Uloom Education Society, Nanded, challenged it by filing Criminal Revision Petition No. 33 of 2018. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded allowed that Revision Petition and quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though as per Section 13 (3) of the Act, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class is empowered to pass an order directing registration of the information in respect of birth or death in case it is not registered with the Registrar within a period of one year of its occurrence, the learned Magistrate does not function as a Court for entertaining the application seeking such order. The learned Magistrate works as a persona designata. He is not working as the Court inferior to the Court of Session within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Code”, for short). The learned Magistrate does not conduct the proceedings as per the procedure prescribed for conducting summary/ summons or warrant trials under the Code. Basically, it is not a criminal proceeding, in the sense the learned Magistrate is not empowered to pass any sentence or inflict penalty. Consequently, the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 13 (3) of the Act is not amenable to revision under Section 397 of the Code. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the Criminal Revision Petition against the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Acc