1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 13.04.2010 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Morigaon in case No. FT(D) No. 1190/2007 (State of Assam vs. Md. Hasmat Ali) by which the petitioners has been declared to be illegal migrant after the cut off date, i.e. 25.03.1991. 2. I have heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. H.K. Barman, learned State counsel. I have also heard Mr. M. Bhagwati, learned CGC. The records of the Tribunal was called for and on receipt of the same, I have perused the same. 3. In the writ petition the petitioner has named himself as Md. Hasmat Ali, son of Md. Nazim Uddin. According to the petitioner, the notice issued by the Tribunal containing his name as Md. Hasmat Ali, son of Nasiruddin was served on him and as there is no other person in the petitioner’s name, he received the same. It has been stated that the Tribunal committee gross illegality declaring the petitioner to be an illegal migrant. 4. In the written statement filed before the Tribunal a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-I to the writ petition, it was contended by the petitioner that his grandfather’s name was enrolled in the voter list of 1965. It was also contended that his father’s name was also enrolled in 1971 voter list. It was further pleaded that the Govt. of India allotted land to his grandfather under annual kharij patta in 1957 under the particular description indicated in the written statement. 5. In the said written statement the petitioner had stated that he was born on 01.10.1981 in village Garubandha under Mayong P.S. in the District of Morigaon and he read in Garubandha L.P. School and passed class IV examination in 1991. He also appeared in HSLC final examination in 2002 from Borbori Milan High School. The petitioner has also referred to an order dated 30.10.1978 purportedly pertaining to his father and also the Pan Card issued in his name. In the written statement the petitioner also contended that his name was enrolled in the voter list of 1997 and that he had applied for enrolment of his name in the voter list of 2005. 6. The petitioner has also referred to an order dated 30.10.1978 purportedly pertaining to his father and also the Pan Card issued in his name. In the written statement the petitioner also contended that his name was enrolled in the voter list of 1997 and that he had applied for enrolment of his name in the voter list of 2005. 6. The Tribunal in due consideration of the evidence adduced by the petitioner and the State, found that the State witness (PW1) had proved the enquiry report (Exhibit I) by which the antecedents of the petitioner were verified with the statement that the petitioner could not produce any valid documents to establish his Indian citizenship and that his mother tongue is Bengali. 7. As recorded in the findings of the Tribunal, the petitioner describing himself to be the son of Md. Nazim Uddin exhibited Exht. ‘Ka”, Exht. ‘Kha’, Exht. ‘Gha’ and Exht. “Gha-1’ . He also produced Ration Card issued by Gagalmari Samabai Samittee in his name and the certificate issued by the Revenue Circle Officer (Mayong) and the Pan Card. 8. Although the petitioner relied upon the certificate issued by one Shri Maya Ram Boro, Gaon Bura, Bulukaguri Gaon who also deposed in the proceeding before the Tribunal as O.P.2, but he did not prove the said certificate. No whisper was made by him about the said certificate. 9. In Exhts. ‘Ka’, ‘Kha’ and ‘Gha’ documents, the name of one Nazimuddin appears. The alleged grandfather of the petitioner was named as Hamed in support of which the petitioner placed reliance on Exht. ‘Ka’, ‘Kha’ and ‘Gha’ in which the names of Hamed; Hamed Ali Sardar and Hamed Ali Seikh appear. It was contended on behalf of State that since notice was served on the petitioner naming him as Md. Hasmat, son of Nasir Uddin and he also received notice and never contended before the Tribunal that the name of his father is Nazimuddin and not Nasir Uddin, the documents containing the name of Nazimuddin whom the petitioner projected as his father cannot establish the Indian citizenship of the petitioner. As noticed above, in the proceeding before the Tribunal and in the documents pertaining to the reference, the father of the petitioner was named as Nasir Uddin and not Nazimuddin. 10. As noticed above, in the proceeding before the Tribunal and in the documents pertaining to the reference, the father of the petitioner was named as Nasir Uddin and not Nazimuddin. 10. In view of the above discrepancies, the Tribunal has answered the reference in favour of the State and against the petitioner. In the proceeding before the Tribunal it was never contended by the petitioner that the name of his father was wrongly mentioned as Nasir Uddin instead of Nazimuddin. 11. As has been described by the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India and another vs. Rampal Singh Bisen reported in (2010) 4 SCC 491 , mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In other words, mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law. Under the evidence also, it is necessary that contents of documents are required to be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. At the most, admission of documents may amount to admission of contents but not its truth. Documents having not been produced and marked as required under the Evidence Act cannot be relied upon by the Court. Contents of the document cannot be proved by merely filing in a court. 12. One interesting feature of the matter is that in the Tribunal the petitioner also exhibited a document dated 20.11.1984 which is a declaration for inclusion of name in the electoral roll. In the said document, name of Md. Nazimuddin whom the petitioner projects as his father appears showing his age (overwriting) as 42 years. In the said document the grandfather of the petitioner (as claimed by the petitioner) Hamed Ali was shown as 110 years of age. On the other hand in the voter list of 1965 Md. Hamed Ali Sardar was shown as 70 years of age. In another document, namely in the payment receipt of LIC premium standing in the name of Md. Hasmat Ali, his father is described as Nizumuddin. 13. The cut off date being 25.03.1971, the persons suspecting to be foreign national (Bangladeshi national) will have to establish his link to the period prior the said cut off date which the petitioner failed to do. Hasmat Ali, his father is described as Nizumuddin. 13. The cut off date being 25.03.1971, the persons suspecting to be foreign national (Bangladeshi national) will have to establish his link to the period prior the said cut off date which the petitioner failed to do. Because of the wide variation in the documents vis a vis the reference made against the petitioner, the Tribunal declined to believe the story of the petitioner. This Court exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit on appeal over the findings recorded by the Tribunal and reappreciate the evidence like an appellate court. 14. For all the aforesaid reason, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 15. The Registry is directed to send down the case records to the Tribunal immediately alongwith a copy of this judgment. Copies of the judgment shall be forwarded to the Superintendent of Police (B), Morigaon and the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon for consequential action as contemplated by law including deletion of the name of the petitioner, if found to have entered in any of the voter lists. A copy of the judgment shall also be send to the Union of India, Home Department, New Delhi for its appraisal. Another copy be furnished to Mr. H.K. Barman, learned State counsel for his necessary follow up action. _____________