JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. This petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. is directed against order dated 12.02.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu and order dated 31.10.2015 passed by the learned Sub-Registrar, Jammu. The facts-in-brief as pleaded in the petition are that respondent-Manmohan Singh moved an Application under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Deaths and Births Act, 1969 before the Court of learned Sub-Registrar Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu for registration of birth event of his child, namely, Danish. Learned Magistrate after recording the statement of applicant-Manmohan Singh and witness ordered for entering the date of birth of the son of respondent as 19.10.1992 vide order dated 06.11.1995. Accordingly, date of birth of the son of the respondent was entered vide registration No. 855. On 08.10.2015, respondent herein again moved an application before the Court of Sub-Registrar Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu for correction of date of birth of son of respondent whereby it was pleaded that date of birth of son of respondent is 19.10.1993 and not 19.10.1992. Learned Magistrate while proceeding with the Application, ordered for change of date of birth of the son of respondent as 19.10.1993 instead of 19.10.1992. 2. Aggrieved thereof, a revision petition was preferred by Registrar Vital Statistics, JMC-petitioner herein before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.02.2016. The operative part whereof reads as under:- "Having regard to what has been discussed herein, it is manifest what since RBD Act is Special Legislation and a complete Code in itself and there being no provision in the Act for challenging the order of a Magistrate, a Criminal Revision under Section 435 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order is not maintainable." 3. Against this order, present petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. has been filed on the grounds taken in it. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. There is no dispute to the admitted position of facts on record that date of birth of the son of respondent was entered in the Birth Registrar of the petitioner as a delayed registration under Sub-Section 3 of Section 131 of the RBD Act, only on the basis of an Application moved by the respondent in the trial Court and order dated 06.11.1995 passed by the learned trial Court on the said Application. Respondent filed another Application for correction of date of birth, which was allowed by ordering correction thereof. Being aggrieved, revision petition was preferred under Section 435 Cr.P.C. which was dismissed vide order dated 12.02.2016. 6. Under Sub-Section (1) of Section 435 Cr.P.C., the High Court or a Sessions Judge has been invested with the powers to call for and examine the record of any proceedings of any inferior criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior Court. The explanation attached to this sub-section contemplates that all Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and Section 435. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is nothing to indicate that any order passed by the Magistrate under the Registration of Deaths and Births Act, 1969 would not fall within the purview of Sub-Section 1 of Section 435 Cr.P.C., therefore, the correctness or legality and propriety of any order can be examined by High Court or Court of Sessions under Section 1 of 435 Cr.P.C. He further contends that learned Sessions Judge has erred in dismissing the revision petition by placing reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in S. Sardool Singh v. Teja Singh reported in 2001 KLJ 656 the question which fell prey for interpretation before the Court was that whether the second revision would lie to High Court in a situation, where Sessions Court has already exercised the power of revision, in that context the Court has held that the second revision would not lie to the High Court. It is further contended that once date of birth was registered on the basis of court order, then filing of subsequent Application for change of date of birth does not survive, as there is no provision in law which empowers the Court to review its own order that too in ex parte. He further contends that the court of learned Sub-Registrar has acted in a mechanical manner without appreciating the position on record. 8. He further contends that the court of learned Sub-Registrar has acted in a mechanical manner without appreciating the position on record. 8. A plain reading of Section 13(3) of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 clearly reveals that delayed registration of birth and deaths having not been registered within one year of its occurrence, are required to be registered by mandate only on an order made by a Magistrate of a First Class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of such occurrence and on payment of the prescribed fee. Correction or cancellation of any entry in the register of Births and deaths has been prescribed under Section 15 of the RBD Act and Rules 12 of the RBD Rules. 9. Mr. Johal, learned Senior Counsel while arguing insisted that in the case of a Special Statute, which is a complete Code in itself, if a thing is to be done in the way mandated by the Statute, it should be done in the same way or it should not be done at all. 10. He also argued that when there is conflict between the special law and general law, then the general law yields to the special law. He, thus, argued that since the RBD Act is a special legislation and a complete Code in itself, therefore, the whole controversy revolves around the well-known principle, "Generalia specialibus non-derogant" which means that the general law yields to the special law. I find legal force in the argument of Mr. Johal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent. By taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision petition on the ground that since RBD Act is Special Legislation and a complete Code in itself and there being no provision in the Act for challenging the order of a Magistrate, a criminal Revision under Section 435 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order was not maintainable. 11. I have gone through the order impugned and am of the considered view that learned Sessions Judge has passed a well reasoned and speaking Order and call for no interference. Remedy in terms of Section 561-A Cr.P.C. can be pressed into service only when it can be held that impugned Order is abuse of process of law. 11. I have gone through the order impugned and am of the considered view that learned Sessions Judge has passed a well reasoned and speaking Order and call for no interference. Remedy in terms of Section 561-A Cr.P.C. can be pressed into service only when it can be held that impugned Order is abuse of process of law. Otherwise also, it is a beaten law of the land that power in terms of Section 561-A Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously. In the present case, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that there is no provision provided for Appeal or Revision from an order passed in exercise of power created under Section 13 of the RBD Act, and the same being a special law. Unless such powers are conferred by the Act itself, the same cannot be read into the Statute, which is a code in itself. Having said so, the Court below has rightly held the Revision Petition to be not maintainable for want of an express provision of law conferring such power. The Revision Petition filed before the Sessions Judge under Section 435 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable for yet another reason that the same provides for exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the said Court as also by the High Court qua the order passed by inferior Criminal Court. The Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Sections 13 and 15 of the RBD Act is not a Magistrate acting as a Criminal Court and Magistrate would act as Criminal Court while exercising power conferred under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, therefore, Section 435 Cr.P.C. had no application in the matter. Viewed thus, there is no merit in this petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed along with connected MP, if any. 1. 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 a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. 2. 1. 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 a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. 2. The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for -such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation:-All Magistrates whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purpose of this sub-section and of section 436. 3. JKJ Soft JKJ/19504