Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Investigation further revealed that 10 birth registration orders/ SDM orders in the name of Daya Shankar Yadav S/o Sh. Avdesh Yadav, Umrul Mukhatar S/o Sh. Anaytulla, Tanya Sharma D/o Sh. Subhash Chand, Ananya Shodwani D/o Sh. Harish Shodwani, Somya D/o Sh. Naresh, Aasma Malik D/o Sh. Rasuddin Malik, Hansika D/o Sh. Zakir Khan, Kanika Dhankar D/o Sh. Shambhu Nath, Neetu D/o Sh. Beeru and Anjali D/o Sh. Jagat Singh were found forged and the same had not been issued from the office of SDM, Civil Lines. Sh. Amrendra Kumar Singh, Tehsildar denied his signatures as well as rubber seal in his name on the aforesaid birth registration orders/SDM orders. These forged birth registration orders/ SDM orders did not bear any dispatch number and counter foils of these orders were not found in the office of SDM, Civil Lines.

11. During investigation 12 genuine SDM orders/birth registration orders having same numbers as mentioned in forged orders were seized from the office of Sub-Registrar (Birth & Death) MCD, Civil Lines, Delhi. These genuine birth orders were bearing dispatch number of office of SDM and their counter foils were also found there during surprise check conducted on 03.06.2015. All these birth registration orders were issued in the year 2014 except the birth order of Pooja Jha which was issued in the year 2012. During investigation self attested photocopies of birth certificates of Rubi, Sahab Jaan, Vishakha Singh, Manya, Nandani Kumari, Sahil Soneja, Rishabh and Pooja Jha were collected from their parents/applicants. All these birth certificates and birth registration orders were found to be issued genuinely.

35. Thus, from the perusal of the aforesaid testimonies of the wit- nesses, it is established that the office copy of the birth registration or- ders/SDM orders were not sent to the office of Zonal Health Officer, MCD even though it was so mentioned in the birth registration orders. This fact is also fortified from the fact that no such office copies of birth registration orders were provided by PW33 Dr. O.P. Gahlot to the IO which could have easily corroborated his testimony.

36. PW-33 O.P. Gahlot, Registrar has also deposed in his examina- tion-in chief that the Birth Registration orders contained in D-31 to D-50 did not contain dispatch number and date on the top and therefore it can be easily identified that they are forged. However, in his cross-ex- amination dated 14/9/2019, he admitted that there was no system in existence in his office in the year 2013-2015 by which it could be veri- fied that the dispatch number mentioned on the birth order was gen- uine or not. He further admitted that the presence or absence of dis- patch number on SDM order could not be a criteria for identifying the SDM order as forged. He further deposed that if the birth order is veri- fied on line from the official website of SDM office only then it can be ascertained if it is genuine or not. Thus from the aforesaid deposition of PW-33, it becomes absolutely clear that mere absence of dispatch number and date on SDM order does not make it a forged document.

37. From the perusal of testimonies of the witnesses as discussed hereinabove, it becomes absolutely clear that there was no proper sys- tem/mechanism available with the accused to verify the genuineness of the birth registration orders received along with the birth reporting forms. There was no practice of sending office copies of birth registra- tion orders by SDM office to concerned Zonal health Officer and ab- sence or presence of dispatch number and date could not be a criteria to determine the genuineness of a birth registration order as there was no system in existence to verify the genuineness of the dispatch num- ber. Similarly, even by going to the official website of Revenue Depart- ment, the accused could have only verified that a birth registration or-