ORDER: This criminal revision arises in this way: The petitioner instituted proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mannargudi for a direction to the concerned Registrar of Births and Deaths to register the birth of his nephew by name Balu, under Sec.13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The learned trial Magistrate enquired into the matter and came to the conclusion that in his Secondary School Leaving records, Balu’s birth date is given as 15.6.1941, whereas in the instant application, his date of birth is given as 13.12.1941 and ordering in the Registrar of Births and Deaths to register his date of birth would lead to the petitioner’s nephew having two conflicting date of births and accordingly dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner has come forward with the instant application. 2. Mr.K.P.Thulasiraman, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the power of the learned Judicial Magistrate under Sec.13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act is to find out whether there had been a birth or death and whether it has been omitted to be recorded and the power does not extend to held a roaring enquiry as to the correctness of the date of birth in support of his contention, the learned counsel cited the following authority G.V.Vijayarangam v. The State Bank of India, represented by the Chief General Manager, Madras and another, 1987 M.L.J. (Crl.) 82, wherein His Lordship Nainar Sundaram, J., as His Lordship then was, has held as under: "It is a well-settled proposition that an entry in any public record or official register or record, though a relevant fact under Sec.35 of the Indian Evidence Act, is not conclusive presumptive proof of what is entered there. If a dispute arises over such entry, it has got to be resolved in an ordinary civil court and no one can insist that the entry must be acted upon as conclusive proof of what is stated therein by any authority especially when a dispute exists over the same." That was a case where the bank issued an order dated 10th June, 1983 directing the petitioner therein, who was a bank officer, to retire from service at the close of business on 6th August, 1983 on the basis that his date of birth stands registered in the service records of the bank as 7th August, 1923. But the petitioner, a bank officer, obtained an order under Sec.13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 to the effect that his date of birth is 17th July, 1927. Under those circumstances, the learned Judge opined that the entry in the Register of Birth and Death through a relevant fact under Sec.35 of the Indian Evidence Act is not conclusive presumptive proof of what is entered there. That was a case where dispute arose regarding the conflicting dates of birth entered in the birth register and birth records maintained by the Bank. 3. The next decision referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is one reported in Velu v. Madathi, A.I.R. 1992 Mad. 224, wherein Padmini Jesudurai, J., has pointed out that the power of the Judicial Magistrate under Sec.13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act extends only to verify whether or not there had been a birth but it does not extend to the verification of correct date of birth. This view has been reiterated by the same learned Judge in Pavathal v. Periasamy Gounder, 1992 L.W. (Crl.) 469, what has been weighed in the mind of the learned Judge is that if an order is passed to register the birth, which is a totally different one from the records available, then it may lead to conflict. 4. The person whose birth is sought to be registered is a Member of Parliament and he is presently a Minister. While all the records maintained by him would go to show that his date of birth is 15.6.1941, if he sought for registration of the same date under Sec.13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, the matters should have been different. But what is now sought to be registered is a different date. It is not as if the Registrar of Births and Deaths is going to hold an enquiry regarding the date of birth. If the court passes an order, then the Registrar would implicitly obey the order and register the date of birth as given in the present application, which would lead to conflict entries of birth regarding the same person. Of course, Padmini Jesudurai, J., has stated in the decisions cited supra that such conflict has been resolved by a civil court if dispute arises regarding the date of birth. Of course, Padmini Jesudurai, J., has stated in the decisions cited supra that such conflict has been resolved by a civil court if dispute arises regarding the date of birth. It is not necessary that always somebody should dispute the date of birth, because a person can always take advantage of the entry in the Register of Births and Deaths and produce the same as his date of birth. This is more possible, if the conflict regarding the date of birth goes unnoticed. Of course, this cannot be a truth on perpetuate a wrong, that is to have two conflicting date of birth to remain on records, I most respectfully differ with the view expressed by Padmini Jesudurai, J. in the decisions cited supra. 5. As per Sec.13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths can also be carried out. Sec.23 of the said Act lays down penalties for persons who gave false information regarding particulars required to be known and registered. But all these factors would be relevant only if there is an opposite party to dispute the date of birth. When there is no opposite party, and when the petition itself gives two different dates, it cannot be said that ex facie the Judicial Magistrate cannot go into the ascertainment of date of birth. 6. The Judicial Magistrate who exercises power under Sec.13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act should not only find out whether there is any birth or death, but also ascertain to certain extent the date of birth also. Such non-ascertainment would lead to hazardous consequence. To draw an analogy, most of the Government servants seem to change their names long after their entry into the service, if they want to effect to such change, this is a natural course for them to have the matter brought before the civil court and resolve the dispute and if they are allowed to say that their birth is not found in the register maintained by the Registrar of Births and Deaths on that particular date, they can seek to have the birth registered which would some time lead to crosscut way of having the date of birth changed. Further, if the Judicial Magistrate is to find out whether there had been any birth or death. Further, if the Judicial Magistrate is to find out whether there had been any birth or death. A moment the person comes with an application to register his birth that would automatically prove that he is born and therefore, absolutely there need be no enquiry at all, because a person who is unborn cannot file an application for registration of his birth, in the instant case, it is curious that a person whose date of birth is sought to be registered, though aged about 58 years had not come forward to file the application, but someone of his relative has come forward to file application for registration of his birth. After all, justice must not only be rendered, but it must also manifestly appear to be rendered. In the instant case, when birth records maintained by Mr.T.R.Balu, presently Minister, is to the effect that he was born on 15.6.1941 and having brought this to the knowledge of the Judicial Magistrate cannot request the Judicial Magistrate to direct the Registrar of Births and Deaths to register his birth, which is stated to have occurred on 13.12.1941 would not be conducive to the interest of justice. This Crl.R.C. is therefore dismissed.