ORDER In this Criminal Revision Petition, the petitioner challenges the finding of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, passed in Cr. M.P. No. 786 of 2007, dated 25.10.2007, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed m application filed under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for registering the birth of the petitioner's daughter. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the mother of Girl Selvi submitted an application before the Lower Court stating that the said Selvi was born out of the wedlock between her husband and herself on 20.12.1970, unfortunately, the birth of the petitioner's daughter was not registered under the Act, but, the School Certificate and her Service Register reflected the said date. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate has rejected the application, on the reasoning that, when the petitioner had registered the birth of an earlier child, there was no explanation for not registering the birth of the said Selvi. The learned Judicial Magistrate, was of the view that the petitioner should seek remedy before the Civil Court. Aggrieved by the said finding, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitting that there was absolutely no reason to reject the contention of the petitioner and issue a direction to the respondent to issue birth certificate as prayed for by her, when the School Certificates and Service Records reflected the same date, relied on an order of this Court in AIR 1992 Madras 224, wherein, in Paragraphs 7(A) and 8, it is held as follows: "Under the Act, a duty is cast upon certain persons mentioned in Section 6, to give information to the authorities constituted under the Act, the various particulars required to be entered in the forms prescribed for the registration of births and deaths. The head of the household, the medical officer, incharge of hospitals, the jailor incharge of jail, the person in Charge of a choultry- chatram, hostel, dharmasala boarding- house, lodging house, tavern, arrack toddy shop and places of public resort, the headman of a village are required to give information. Failure to give information calls for penal action. Section 8(1) requires these persons to give information orally or in writing, according to the best of their knowledge and belief. Failure to give information calls for penal action. Section 8(1) requires these persons to give information orally or in writing, according to the best of their knowledge and belief. The information so given is entered in the registers prescribed under the Act and extracts of the entries in Registers are given when required. If the information is not given within the period prescribed, the same could be given within 30 days of its occurrence on payment of a late fee. Any information given after 30 days but within one year of the occurrence, could be registered only with the written permission of the prescribed authority, on the production of an affidavit made before a notary public, and on payment of the prescribed fee. If, however, any birth or death had not been registered within one year of its occurrence, it could be registered only on an order made by Magistrate of the first class after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. The relevant sub-section is as follows: "13(3) Any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of the first class, or presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth and on payment of the prescribed fee." 8. No particular procedure is prescribed either under the Act or the Rules, regarding the manner in which the Judicial Magistrate is to verify correctness of the birth or death. The very fact that no particular procedure is prescribed for this verification would imply, that all that the Judicial Magistrate is concerned with under Section 13(3) of the Act is verification of the correctness of the birth or death. Sub-section (3) as it stands, does not contemplate the learned Magistrate to verify the correctness of the date of birth or death or to hold an enquiry in the event of a dispute over the exact date of death or birth. The verification has to relate only to the correctness of the fact of birth or death. In other words, the learned Magistrate will have to be satisfied, that the birth or death had in fact taken place. Deciding the exact date of death or birth in the case of a dispute regarding the date, is beyond the scope of Section 13(3). In other words, the learned Magistrate will have to be satisfied, that the birth or death had in fact taken place. Deciding the exact date of death or birth in the case of a dispute regarding the date, is beyond the scope of Section 13(3). As stated earlier, information, which the persons mentioned in Section 8 are bound to give for registration of the birth or death, could be based on their knowledge or even belief. If after verifying, the learned Magistrate is not satisfied that the birth or death had really taken place, he should refuse to issue an order to register. If, however, he is satisfied that the birth or death as the case might be, had occurred, he has to order registration. He is not concerned with the exact date of birth or death. He has to register as required by the applicant and leave the aggrieved parties, if any, to seek remedy in the civil forum or any other appropriate forum. The object of the Act is only to make available, population data for planning purposes. Indeed, if the registration is made contemporaneous to the birth or death, the evidentiary value of the date of birth or death, would be considerable and would even be conclusive. This however, is only a consequence that incidentally flows from the registration, the main object still being, registering the fact of birth or death." 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would fairly submit that the issue involved in this Criminal Revision Petition is squarely covered by the said Order of this Court. 6. I am in respectful agreement with the observations made in the said decision. Therefore, the impugned order dated 25.10.2007 made in Cr. M.P. No. 786 of 2007, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, is set aside. This Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed. The respondent is directed to register the birth of the petitioner's daughter Selvi D/o. Krishnasamy Naicker, residing at No. 33, Balaiah Naicker Street, Vellanaikottai, Subramaniapuram Village, Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District, under the Act. Petition allowed.