Short answer. It's presumed accurate, but that presumption can be challenged. Rule 132, Section 23 makes entries in public records, made by a public officer performing his duty, prima facie evidence of the facts stated — meaning presumed true unless someone offers contrary proof; other public documents remain evidence of the fact and date of execution.
What the law says
Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.
Rule 132, Section 23 — Public documents as evidence. Read the full provision →
What 'prima facie evidence' actually means
Calling something prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated means the entry is accepted as proof of those facts unless and until it is disputed with contrary evidence — it is a starting presumption, not an unchallengeable conclusion. In practice, this shifts the burden: whoever wants to contest what the record says has to come forward with evidence to rebut it, rather than the record's proponent having to independently re-prove every fact it contains.
The condition that earns this presumption
The presumption applies specifically to entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer. That phrasing ties the presumption to official duty — it is the fact that a public officer recorded the entry as part of their official function that gives the entry this elevated evidentiary status, rather than the entry simply having been issued by some government office in a general sense.
The broader category of other public documents
Section 23 also covers a wider group: all other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. This second sentence is narrower in what it proves — it establishes the fact and date behind the document's execution, and notably it can be used even against someone who was not a party to the document at all.
Why this matters if you're disputing an official record
Because a qualifying entry only carries a prima facie presumption rather than an unassailable one, a party who believes a public record is wrong is not without recourse — they can present evidence to rebut it. But that also means simply asserting the record is inaccurate is not enough on its own; the party challenging it should be prepared to bring actual contrary evidence rather than relying on bare denial.
Related provisions
- Rule 132, Section 22 — How genuineness of handwriting proved
- Rule 132, Section 24 — Proof of official record