Relevancy of entry in public record made in performance of duty
Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with relevancy of entry in public record made in performance of duty. An entry in any public or other official book, register or [record or an electronic record], stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performances of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
An entry in any public or other official book, register or [record or an electronic record], stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performances of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register or [record or an electronic record], is kept, is itself a relevant fact.
Section 35, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 29 Relevancy of entry in public record or an electronic record made in performance of duty Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs State of M. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a claim of juvenility is raised before any court, the court must conduct a simplified inquiry under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 read with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, following a strict hierarchical order of evidence: (1) Matriculation or equivalent certificates, (2) Date of birth certificate from school first attended (other than play school), (3) Birth certificate from corporation, municipal authority, or panchayat, or (4) Medical opinion only in the absence of the foregoing. Once any of the first three categories of documents is produced and not controverted, the court shall accept them as conclusive proof of age and pass a finding of juvenility if the age is below 18 years on the date of commission of the offence. The court shall not conduct investigative or trial-like inquiries, shall not require witnesses to be examined merely because they made entries in documents, shall not conduct medical tests unless the documents are found to be fabricated or manipulated, and shall complete the age determination within 30 days. A school admission register produced by the school principal is relevant and conclusive evidence of date of birth when consistently entered and not controverted, and courts shall not second-guess such entries by conducting fishing inquiries or requiring corroborating evidence such as horoscopes. The date relevant for determining juvenility is the date of commission of the alleged offence, and once established, the juvenile is entitled to all benefits under the Juvenile Justice Act regardless of when the claim is raised.
On this section: Cited in Jabar Singh case to argue about admissibility of school records, though the Supreme Court expressed reservations on that interpretation.
-
Rajni vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When documentary evidence in the form of school certificate and birth certificate from municipal authority showing date of birth is available, the Juvenile Justice Board cannot order medical examination for age determination. The hierarchy prescribed under Section 94(2) of Juvenile Justice Act 2015 must be strictly followed: school/matriculation certificate first, then birth certificate from corporation/municipality/panchayat, and only in absence of these can medical examination be ordered. The date of birth mentioned in school certificate is determinative of age and cannot be ignored. Further, the Juvenile Justice Board has no power of review under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 to revisit its earlier acceptance of a date of birth in a previous proceeding. Additionally, when a juvenile accused of heinous offence has been on bail for more than three years without evidence of misuse, interference with bail order is not warranted unless there is evidence of misuse of liberty.
On this section: Credibility of public or official documents maintained in discharge of official duty
-
Murugan @ Settu vs State of Tamil Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Documentary evidence of age, specifically birth certificates issued by municipal authorities under the Registration of Birth and Deaths Act, 1969, and corroborating entries in school registers made ante litem motam (before the dispute arose), are reliable and trustworthy evidence of a child's age in criminal proceedings. When such documentary evidence is supported by witness testimony, medical opinion based on radiological tests regarding apparent age cannot override the conclusive documentary proof. The absence of the child's name in the birth certificate does not cast doubt on its authenticity, as it is common knowledge that municipal birth certificates are registered immediately after birth before the child is named. Accordingly, in cases of sexual assault of minors, the court should primarily rely on such documentary evidence to determine the child's age, rather than medical opinions or statements made by the child herself.
On this section: The court applied this section to establish the admissibility and reliability of documents made ante litem motam (before the dispute/litigation arose), such as the birth certificate and school records showing the date of birth as 30.3.1984.
-
Alamelu vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When evidence contains inherent improbabilities, suffers from basic infirmities, and witnesses demonstrate contradictory accounts coupled with unnatural conduct of the alleged victim, courts below must closely scrutinize such evidence before convicting. Mere concurrent findings of courts below, without regard to fundamental improbabilities rendering the evidence unworthy of credence, cannot sustain a conviction. Documentary evidence of age (such as transfer certificates) without examination of the person making the entry has no probative value in criminal prosecutions, and radiological age determination carries a margin of error of two years on either side. The prosecution must prove each element of the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and when the entire narrative contains logical inconsistencies, internal contradictions, and unnatural behavior inconsistent with the alleged crime, acquittal is mandated.
On this section: Admissibility of public documents; applied to analyze evidentiary value of school transfer certificate; held that mere production of document without examination of person making entry has limited probative value
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The jamabandi for the year 1969-70 (Exhibit P1) records the name of Shri Amin Lal as owner to the extent of half share. Revenue records are public documents maintained by government officials in the regular course of duties and carry a presumption of correctness under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. While it is true that revenue entries do not by themselves confer title, they are admissible as evidence of possession and can support a claim of ownership when corroborated by other evidence. - 8.3 The respondents have produced copies of registered sale deeds and mutation records …
-
… Xaviers School, Boring Road, Patna and transfer certificate issued by Swami Vivekananda Vidyalaya, Mithapur, Patna, were produced as documents to prove that the successful candidate therein was not eligible to contest the said Assembly election. In the said case, Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act was referred to and it was observed that the register maintained in terms of a statute or by a statutory authority in regular course of business would be a relevant fact and if such vital evidence had been produced, it would clinch the issue. It was observed that there is no reliable …
-
… At the same time, the Court should ensure that the JJ Act, 2015 is not misused by persons to escape punishment after having committed serious offences. - (ix) That when the determination of age is on the basis of evidence such as school records, it is necessary that the same would have to be considered as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, inasmuch as any public or official document maintained in the discharge of official duty would have greater credibility than private documents. - (x) Any document which is in consonance with public documents, such as matriculation certificate, could be accepted by the Court or the JJ …
Questions about Section 35
What have the courts held on Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs State of M. P (13 Sep 2012) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Cited in Jabar Singh case to argue about admissibility of school records, though the Supreme Court expressed reservations on that interpretation. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2011 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IEA 35, section 35 IEA, section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs State of M. P (13 Sep 2012).
What should I read with Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 29 (Relevancy of entry in public record or an electronic record made in performance of duty), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 35, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.