Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.45 seconds)Section 74 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mohan Lal & Ors on 7 May, 1996
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
M.P. & Ors. Vs. Mohan Lal Sharma reported in 2002 (7) SCC
719 has succinctly held that correctness of date of birth recorded
in matriculation certificate could not be refused rather it ought
to have been accepted.
Annu Kumari @ Annu Sharma vs The State Election Commission & Ors on 10 September, 2014
Similarly, in the
case of Annu Kumari @ Annu Sharma (supra), the learned
Court in its considered opinion held that the date of birth as
recorded in matriculation certificate would prevail over other
document.
Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain vs State Of West Bengal on 10 October, 2012
He also submits that for the
purpose of determination of the age, by giving primacy to
matriculation certificate, reliance was placed on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar
Gupta Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2019 (12)
SCC 370 and Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain Vs. State of
West Bengal reported in 2012 (10) SCC 489, wherein it was
held that wherever there is any doubt or contradictory stand is
Patna High Court CWJC No.5858 of 2023 dt.24-11-2023
8/18
being taken by the accused, which raises the doubt on the
correctness of date of birth, then an enquiry for determination of
the age of the accused is permissible. However, in defiance of
the aforesaid legal principle, the respondent no. 8 has declared
the petitioner disqualified to hold the post only because in
matriculation certificate her date of birth is mentioned as
05.12.2003.
Arti Kumari vs The Bihar State Election Commission ... on 24 April, 2023
13. Per contra, Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, learned advocate
for the State Election Commission submits that the issue raised
before this Court regarding primacy to the matriculation
certificate has been duly considered by co-ordinate Benches of
this Court in the case of Arti Kumari vs The Bihar State
Election Commission and Dhiraj Kumar Vs. The State of
Bihar reported in 2022 (5) BLJ 599 and 2023 (3) BJL 558
respectively.
Shyam Lal @ Kuldeep vs Sanjeev Kumar & Ors on 15 April, 2009
25. The learned co-ordinate Bench has also taken
Patna High Court CWJC No.5858 of 2023 dt.24-11-2023
17/18
cognizance of the provisions that Sections 35 and 74 of the
Evidence Act incorporates that what kind of documents are
admissible in evidence. On relying upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sham Lal @ Kuldip Vs.
Sanjeev Kumar and Others reported in AIR (2009) SC 3115,
wherein it was held that school leaving certificate is within the
ambit of admissible document under Section 74 of the Evidence
Act.
Umesh Chandra vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 April, 1982
Thereafter, the learned Court has also taken cognizance of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Umesh Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR (1982)
SC 1057, wherein, it has been held that records maintained by a
public school according to the rule should be presumed to be
correct under Section 35 of the Evidence Act.
Brij Mohan Singh vs Priya Brat Narain Sinha And Ors on 5 February, 1964
22. The reliance made on behalf of the petitioner on a
Constitution Bench judgment rendered in the case of Brij
Mohan Singh (supra) is in the opinion of this Court is
distinguishable in the facts of the present case for the reason that
despite showing the case of the petitioner, that her date of birth
is 01.01.1998 and not 05.12.2003 as recorded in her
matriculation certificate, rather the petitioner herself has shown
her date of birth as 01.01.2000 in her nomination paper and, she
Patna High Court CWJC No.5858 of 2023 dt.24-11-2023
15/18
did not make any endeavour to get her date of birth corrected,
despite having got proper time and opportunity.