WP(C) 5199/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The Stat e is represented by the learned Government Advocate Mr. M. Bhagabati. Mr. D.C. Borah, the learned CGC appears for the Union of India. 2. This matter arises out of the reference made to the Foreigners Tribunal for determination of the status of the petitioner under the Foreigners Act, 1946 . Previously the matter was pending before the Illegal Migrants Determination Tr ibunal (IMDT) but after the Supreme Court decision, the reference was transferre d to the Foreigners Tribunal. 3. The petitioner participated in the proceeding (Case No. F.T. 15/2006) bu t he failed to produce any document to show that he entered India prior to 1971. He relied on the 1966 Voters List of his brother Jogeswar Dey, who was shown to be 75 years in the voters list and the petitioner being the younger brother wit h an age difference of 30 years, would have been 45 years of age in the year 196 6. Thus during the proceeding before the Foreigners Tribunal, the petitioner was aged about 60 years and yet he was unable to produce any Pre-1971 document. The petitioner previously admitted before the Enquiry Officer that his family origi nally hails from Village-Sawpara, P.S.- Munsiganj, District-Dhaka, in erstwhile East Pakistan. 4. The learned Tribunal took into account the xerox copy of the 1977 Voter s List produced by the petitioner although strictly speaking, the same is not a dmissible in evidence. But in that voter list while the name of one Hari Das was reflected at Sl. No.245, the father’s name of the voter was reflected as Purnac handra. Moreover name of the wife of the voter was shown as Anjali, whereas the name of the petitioner’s wife is Lakhirani. Confronted with the discrepancy in t he information pertaining to his elder brother in the 1966 Voters List and the i nformation projected to be that of the petitioner in the 1977 Voters List, the p etitioner was found to be uncertain on whether Hara Kr. Dey or Purnachandra was his father’s name. It is also noticed that the D.W.2, D.W.3 and D.W.4 while test ifying as supporting witnesses, were unsure about the concerned year since when , they claimed to have known the petitioner or the year when he voted. Moreover the claim made by the petitioner of having stayed at Dihing Kiner Bengali Gaon i n Naharkotia Sub-Division could not be proved through evidence. Therefore after elaborate discussion of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal through the impugned judgment dated 11.9.2008 (Page-13) declared the petitioner to have ill egally entered India after 25.3.1971 and thus the reference was answered in Stat e’s favour. 5. In his own evidence, the petitioner admitted that he has no supporting d ocument pertaining to himself or his father on legitimate entry to India. In his cross-examination, he claimed that his brother Jogeswar Dey is elder to him by 30 years. As D.W.1, he further stated that he heard from his parents that they c ame from Dhaka District but he doesn’t have any proof of being an Indian citizen . The D.W.2 Indra Kr. Dey claimed that he knew the petitioner to have voted but he was unable to say in which year, the petitioner cast his vote. The evidence o f the D.W.3 Bisu Dey did not throw any light on the status of the petitioner. Th e evidence of the defense witness Arjun Ch. Kar was full of uncertainty and was based on approximation of the years and age and similarly the evidence of D.W.5 Sushil Chakraborty too was based on assumption and imagination. 6. What is conspicuous in the present case is that the Foreigners Tribunal took into account the oral testimony of the witnesses and also considered the 19 66 and 1977 Voters List produced by the petitioner. The discrepancy in the name of the petitioner’s father and his age vis-à-vis his brother Jogeswar Dey were n oted by the Tribunal. A middle aged about 45 years in 1966 was unable to furnish any proof of having entered India prior to 1971 and this was considered to be a n adverse factor by the Tribunal. 7. According to me the learned Tribunal answered the reference with adequat e reasons and the conclusions are found to be consistent with the evidence. Thu s since the petitioner was afforded a fair opportunity, no infirmity is noticed with the verdict. For these reasons, this case is found to be devoid of merit an d the same is accordingly dismissed. No cost. 8. The Registry should furnish a copy of this order to Mr. M. Bhagabati, th e learned Government Advocate and also send a copy of this order to the Foreigne rs Tribunal, Dibrugarh.