Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply has submitted that the proposition of law regarding Matriculation certificate forming conclusive proof of the date of birth has also been clarified by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ranjit Kumar Jha Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2012 (1) BBCJ 353.

Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court would like to deal with the matter in some detail. There cannot be any two opinions and the law also stands well settled, both by the plain reading of the Act and the Rules as far as the issue of determination of age is concerned. Section 12 of the Rules has laid down the procedure to be followed in determination of age and its sub-section 3 (a) and (b) makes it clear that the Matriculation or equivalent certificate, if available, shall be the 6 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1594 of 2009 dt.13-02-2012 best document and reliance has to be placed upon its entry. The other point, and more importantly, is the issue as to whether the consideration of the Court below in the impugned order is rightly directed or suffers from serious error. The fact that the petitioner had produced the Matriculation certificate of the year 1998 and the residential certificate issued in February, 2007 is neither disputed nor its authenticity is under challenge in as much as neither the parties nor the Court has gone on this aspect and thus it had to be held that the same are genuine documents. The second point which immediately follows is whether the same can be relied upon. Both the documents come under the category of admissible documents under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and thus there is a presumption of their genuineness until proved otherwise. In the present case the parties have also not challenged its authenticity or existence. This issue stands settled in favour of the petitioner. The other ground on which the Court below has brushed aside the residential certificate is that the same has been obtained only in February, 2007 and the application has been filed in March, 2007 and thus the same is indication of the fact that the document was intentionally brought into existence to take advantage of juvenility. Obviously the certificate is of the Month of February, 2007 but the same has only been necessitated since the controversy had been raised that Pankaj Kumar and Niranjan Kumar are two different persons and to clear the field by some documents from the authority which 7 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1594 of 2009 dt.13-02-2012 could have established the fact that Pankaj Kumar and Niranjan Kumar were the name of the same person and the two were alias of each other. Thus, to this extent the certificate was obtained only by way of a supporting document to establish that the fact pleaded by the petitioner was true. The reliance is not on the said document for the purposes of determining the date of birth which is entered in the Matriculation certificate of the year 1998, that is, much prior to the incident itself. It is common knowledge that the certificates and documents are procured as per the required need. Thus, the need for obtaining of residential certificate arose when there was controversy that Pankaj Kumar and Niranjan Kumar are two different persons. The Court below brushed aside the residential certificate issued by an officer of the State Government and thus in the absence of the said certificate being challenged, the benefit, according to this Court, would go to the petitioner and the Court below has erred on this front.