Sharma, J;— This writ petition is directed against the judgement and order dated 8.1.2010 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Golaghat in case No. FT(G) 438/2007 (State Vs. Md. Hasen Ali), by which the petitioner has been declared to be a foreign national (illegal Bangladeshi migrant). Facts stated in the writ petition : 2. According to the petitioner, he is an Indian citizen, by birth and his father’s name Mofiz Uddin appears in the NRC of 1951. In the year 1961, periodic Khiraj Patta No. 90 of Mouza – Moirabari, Village – Beluguri in the district of Nagaon had been granted in favour of said Mofiz Uddin. Mofiz Uddin’s name appeared in the voter list of 1965 in the district of Sonitpur, Assam. His name also appeared in the voter list of 1971 as Mifiz Uddin Sk in the district of Sonitpur. It has further been stated that the petitioner’s name also appeared in the voter list of 2005 in the district of Golaghat. According to the petitioner, he read up to class VII in the School called Barchala Middle English School, Tezpur in the district of Sonitpur. The petitioner has also relied upon 2 (two) certificates issued by the Secretary, Barbogia Barchala Gaon Panchayat and the Gaon Bhura No.1, Podumoni Gaon in the district of Golaghat, certifying him to be the permanent resident of the particular locality. In the 2nd certificate, his father is named as Late Mofiz Uddin Ali. 3. On 11.6.2007, the Foreigners Tribunal, Golaghat, served a notice on the petitioner in connection with FT(G) Case No. 438/2007, asking him to appear and answer the reference suspecting the petitioner to be a foreign national. In response to the said notice, the petitioner appeared before the said Tribunal and submitted his written objection enclosing therewith the aforesaid voter list of 1965, 1971 & 2005 ; the School certificate and the Gaon Panchayat Certificates. However, the learned Tribunal by its impugned judgement and order dated 8.1.2010, declared the petitioner to be a foreign national. 4. Although, the petitioner has been declared to be a foreign national by the said impugned judgement and order dated 8.1.2010 and the petitioner received the copy of the same, after waiting for about 1½ year, he again applied for the certified copy of the documents pertaining to the said proceeding. Thereafter, he filed the instant writ petition on 30.6.2011 assailing the impugned judgement and order. Thereafter, he filed the instant writ petition on 30.6.2011 assailing the impugned judgement and order. Documents annexed to the writ petition : 5. In the writ petition, the petitioner has annexed photocopies of certain documents, namely, purported NRC of 1951 (photocopy) containing the name of one Mofiz Uddin, son of Motiullah ; periodic Khiraj Patta No. 90 dated 10.12.1957 standing in the name of Mofizuddin and Sahir Uddin ; voter list of 1965 pertaining to Barchola LAC containing the name of one Mofiz Uddin ; voter list of 1971 pertaining to Barchala LAC containing the name of one Mofkuddin ; School certificate purportedly issued by the Head Master of Barchala Middle English School, Tezpur, Sonitpur ; Certificate dated 24.9.88 purportedly issued by Barbhagia Barchala Gaon Panchayat in the district of Sonitpur, certifying the petitioner to be a resident of the particular locality ; Certificate dated 20.3.2009 issued by the Gaon Bhhura of Village Podumoni in the district of Golaghat, certifying to the same effect ; voter list of 2005 containing the name of one Hasen Ali, S/o. Mohizuddin Ali, aged 47 years ; notice dated 11.6.2007 issued to the petitioner by the Foreigners Tribunal, Golaghat, asking him to appear before it and the copy of the written statement submitted by the petitioner on 29.11.2007 before the Tribunal. Plea of the petitioner: 6. It is on the above basis, the petitioner has contended that since he had submitted all the required documents before the Tribunal, it was incumbent on the part of the said Tribunal to consider the same and answer the reference in the negative and in favour of the petitioner. There is no whisper in the writ petition that the petitioner after submission of the written statement along with the documents thereto did not appear before the Tribunal to prove the same. The petitioner seeks to give an impression that upon filing of documents (all photocopies), the Tribunal is bound to accept the same and answer the reference against the State and in favour of the petitioner. Arguments : 7. Mr. M.U. Mandol, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the petitioner had submitted the required documents to establish his Indian citizenship by birth, the Tribunal ought to have considered the same instead of passing the impugned judgement and order, declaring the petitioner to be a foreign national (illegal Bangladeshi migrant). On the other hand, Mr. Arguments : 7. Mr. M.U. Mandol, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the petitioner had submitted the required documents to establish his Indian citizenship by birth, the Tribunal ought to have considered the same instead of passing the impugned judgement and order, declaring the petitioner to be a foreign national (illegal Bangladeshi migrant). On the other hand, Mr. H.K. Barman, learned State Counsel submitted that since the petitioner failed to discharge his burden of proof as Indian citizen as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Tribunal rightly answered the reference in favour of the State. Mr. M. Bhagabati, learned CGC also submitted that the Tribunal having appreciated the reference as required under the law, there is nothing wrong in the findings recorded against the petitioner and in favour of the State. Conclusions and findings : 8. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner produced the purported originals of the Annexure-5 School Certificate and the Annexures – 6 & 7 residentship certificates, referred to above. For a prima-facie satisfaction about the veracity or otherwise of the same, this Court got the said certificates verified through the authorities. So far as the School certificate is concerned purportedly issued by the Head Master of Barchala Middle English School, apart from the fact that the said certificate is dated 19.9.1986 and thus had been issued after 11 years of purported leaving of the School by the petitioner, in the verification report submitted by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, it is revealed that the counterfoil of the said certificate bearing No. 945 is not available in School records. Further, the School Register also does not bear the testimony of the same. This aspect of the matter has been recorded in the order dated 9.2.2012 passed in this proceeding, which is reproduced below :- “9.2.2012 The respondents were directed to get the Annexure-5 dated 19.9.86 and the Annexures 6 and 7 certificates dated 24.9.88 and 20.3.09 verified. The annexures 6 and 7 certificates were to be verified by the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur and Deputy Comissioner, Goalpara. Mr. The annexures 6 and 7 certificates were to be verified by the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur and Deputy Comissioner, Goalpara. Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department has produced the letter dated 17.1.2012 issued by the Director, Elementary Education, Assam annexing the letter dated 16.1.2012 issued by District Elementary Education Officer and the letter dated 16.1.2012 written by Sri Ram Bahadur Sutar, Head Master, Barsala M.E. School. The said documents reveal that the origin of Annexure-5 certificate is not available, neither in the form of counterfoil of the same or the contents thereof, in the admission register. Thus, prima-facie the Annexure-5 photocopy of the certificate dated 19.9.86 is a product of forgery. Mr. Barman, learned State Counsel prays for ten days time to file reports of respective Deputy Commissioners. If by the next date fixed the verification reports are not furnished the said two Deputy Commissioners shall appear in person, before this Court. List on 23.2.2012.” 9. Further, on a bare perusal of Annnexure-5 School Certificate annexed to the writ petition, there is apparent over-writing, particularly in respect of the class in which the petitioner had allegedly studied and the figure 1977. 10. As regards the Anenxures – 6 and 7 residentship certificates, while the Anenxure-7 certificate stated to have been issued by the authority but in respect of Annexure-6 certificate, the verification report dated 14.2.2012 states that the petitioner had informed over phone that he had obtained the certificate but since the concerned Secretary of the particular Gaon Panchayat has died and that since the office copy of the said certificate was not found and also the seals used in the certificate were also not found, it is difficult to say as to whether the certificate is genuine or not. 11. Irrespective of the aforesaid reports, I have considered the case of the petitioner on the basis of the available materials. As noted above, the petitioner has withheld the fact of non-appearance before the Tribunal after filing of the written statement, which was filed on 29.11.2007, about which there is mention in the order of the Tribunal dated 22.1.2008. Along with the said written statement, the petitioner also submitted the aforementioned documents. However, the said documents did not contain the copy of the 1951 NRC (photocopy), now filed along with the writ petition. 12. Along with the said written statement, the petitioner also submitted the aforementioned documents. However, the said documents did not contain the copy of the 1951 NRC (photocopy), now filed along with the writ petition. 12. After filling of the written statement as aforesaid, the petitioner remained absent from contesting the reference on several dates, namely, 11.9.2008, 22.10.2008, 3.12.2008, 9.1.2009, 6.2.2009, 7.3.2009, 13.4.2009, 30.6.2009, 18.8.2009, 20.10.2009, 10.12.2009 and eventually on the date of passing the final judgement also. In between, the Tribunal passed the order for exparte hearing of the reference. 13. As noted above, there is no whisper in the writ petition about the non-appearance of the petitioner on all the aforesaid dates. Only projection made in the writ petition is that since the petitioner had filed the written statement and certain documents along with the same, it was incumbent on the part of the Tribunal to peruse the same and answer the reference in favour of the petitioner and against the State. As per Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, burden of proof lies on the referee i.e. the person against whom the reference is made to prove that he is an Indian citizen. In the instant case, although the petitioner was given enough opportunity, he failed to discharge the said burden and now coming to the writ Court, has dumped certain documents including the purported NRC of 1951 which was never produced before the Tribunal, so as to contend that he is an Indian citizen, by birth. 14. It was the duty of the petitioner to prove the documents in accordance with law. Filing of the documents cannot partake the character of admissible evidence in a Court of Law. The documentary evidence was required to be proved by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, which he measurably failed to do. As has been held by the Apex Court in LIC of India Vs. Rampal Singh Bisen reported in (2010) 4 SCC 491 that under the law of 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. 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. 15. In the proceeding before the Tribunal and records pertaining there to, the petitioner was named as Hasen Ali son of Late Mofiz Uddin. The petitioner also received notice in that name under that description. In the written statement, the petitioner named his father as late Mofiz Uddin Seikh. But coming to the writ Court, he has named his father by 3 (three) different names, namely, Late Md. Mofiz uddin Ali @ Mofiz Uddin @ Mofiz Uddin Sk. In the written statement filed by the petitioner in the Tribunal, it was never his contention that his father’s name appears in the NRC of 1951 but coming to the writ court, he has placed reliance on a document, stating the same to be the copy of the NRC of 1951. The copy that has been annexed to the writ petition is also not legible. Likewise, the Annexure-3 photocopy of the voter list of 1965 is also not at all legible. The said photocopies cannot be admitted on evidence unless proved in accordance with law. _____________