JUDGEMENT : 1. Heard Mr. M.U. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. J. Ghosh, learned State Counsel and so also Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI. I have also perused the entire materials on record including the records received from the Tribunal. 2. The matter pertains to the opinion rendered by the Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Morigaon in case No. FT (C) 833/2006 (Police reference No. 401/2000) (Sate of Assam Vs. Mustt. Farida Khatun). By the said order, the petitioner has been declared to be a foreigner as she failed to discharge her burden of proof as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 3. As will be evident from the impugned order, all the documents submitted by the petitioner were only photocopies. Needless to say that such photocopies of documents are inadmissible in evidence. That apart, as discussed in the impugned order and also discernible from the evidence on record, the petitioner herself stated that the house of her father Foizuddin was at Hatipara Gaon under Rupohi Police Station, but photocopies of voter lists incorporating the name of Foizuddin indicate that he was a voter of Dakhin Khatowal village. As has been recorded in the order of the Tribunal, not a single document could be proved by the petitioner as required under the Law of Evidence. 4. As per the evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2, during investigation by the Police the petitioner failed to produce any valid document to prove her Indian citizenship. PW-3 in his deposition stated that during investigation it was revealed that the petitioner came to India (Assam) for livelihood after the cut-off date i.e. 25/03/1971 from Village and Post Office Chailakura in the district of Syllhet. The petitioner in her deposition stated that Foizuddin is her father and his house was in the Village Chatipara under Police Station Rupohi. On the other hand, OPW-2 examined by her stated that the house of Foizuddin was at Dakhin Khatowal and that he was born and brought up at Dakhin Khatowal. 5. Mr. M.U. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that along with the photocopies of documents, the petitioner also produced the originals i.e. the certified copies. He further submits that even the photocopies being the copies of the certified copies of the documents are admissible in evidence. 5. Mr. M.U. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that along with the photocopies of documents, the petitioner also produced the originals i.e. the certified copies. He further submits that even the photocopies being the copies of the certified copies of the documents are admissible in evidence. According to him, the petitioner having produced the photocopies of the certified copies of the documents, she had duly discharged her burden of proof as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. He also submits that the documents being public documents, there was no necessity to produce the certified copies thereof. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the following judgements : 1. 2012 (1) SCC 425 – (Jaswant Singh Vs. Gurdev Singh and others); 2. 2013 (4) SCC 97 – (Laxmibai (dead) through LRs and another Vs. Bhagwantbuva (dead) through LRs and others); 3. AIR 1963 SC 1633 – Madamanchi Ramappa and another Vs. Muthaluru Bojjappa) ; and 4. 2013 (1) GLT 809- (State of Assam Vs. Moslem Mondal and others). 6. Both Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI and Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned State Counsel submit that the above argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misplaced. They submit that the photocopies of the documents are not admissible in evidence and that too when the same were not exhibited and proved as per the Law of Evidence. 7. Section 62 and 63 of the Evidence Act define Primary Evidence and Secondary Evidence. Certified copies given under the provisions of the Act, although are secondary evidence and required to be proved by primary evidence but as indicated in Section 64 and 65 of the Act, there are exception to the said Rule. That apart, under Section 77 of the Evidence Act, 1872, certified copies of documents may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents and under Section 79, the Court is required to presume as to the genuineness of the certified copies. 8. In the instant case, although the petitioner has contended that certified copies of the documents had been produced and exhibited in reference to the certified copies, but the same is not discernible from records. The photocopies of the documents produced by the petitioner are not available in the record. There is nothing to show that at any point of time, the petitioner had produced the certified copies. The photocopies of the documents produced by the petitioner are not available in the record. There is nothing to show that at any point of time, the petitioner had produced the certified copies. The documents were not exhibited and proved as required under the Law of Evidence. 9. As has been held by the Apex Court in 2010 (4) SCC 491 (LICI Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen), 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 Curt. Contents of the document cannot be proved by merely filing in a court. 10. In Ashok Dulichand Vs. Madahavlal Dube and another reported in (1975) 4 SCC 664 , the Apex Court having found that even no foundation was laid down by the appellant for leading secondary evidences in the shape of Photostat copy of the document in question, declined to accept the said evidence. As in the said case in the instant case also, the petitioner has failed to explain as to what were the circumstances under which the Photostat copies of the documents were prepared and who was in possession of the original certified copies at the time, their Photostat copies were taken. 11. In the case of Smt. Manorama Srivastava and another Vs. Smt. Saroj Srivastava reported in AIR 1989 All 117 , it was held that Photostat copies of documents cannot be allowed in evidence. It is only the certified copies which can be allowed in evidence. That apart, as discussed above, the petitioner also failed to prove the contents of the documents. 12. The decisions on which Mr. M.U. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance have no relevance to the issue in hand. In Madamanchi Ramappa (Supra) the Apex Court held that the document in question being a certified copy of a public document need not have been proved by calling a witness. In the instant case, what the petitioner produced were only photocopies of some documents and not the certified copies. In Jaswant Singh (Supra), the Apex Court was concerned with the compromise decree and as to whether the compromise (Ext. In the instant case, what the petitioner produced were only photocopies of some documents and not the certified copies. In Jaswant Singh (Supra), the Apex Court was concerned with the compromise decree and as to whether the compromise (Ext. D3) was admissible in evidence or not. It was held that the compromise being a part of the decree, became a public document in terms of Section 74 of the Evidence Act and thus the certified copy thereof under Section 76 of the Act was admissible in evidence under Section 77 of the Act. It was held that a certified copy of a public document is admissible in evidence without being proved by calling witness. Unlike the said case, the petitioner failed to produce the certified copies. 13. In Laxmibai (dead) through LRs (Supra), the Court was concerned with an adoption deed. It was contended the same was not satisfactorily proved. Having regard to the fact that no attempt was made to challenge the validity of the said document which was held that the document was valid. I have failed to understand as to how this case is of any help to the case of the petitioner. 14. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Moslem Mondal (Supra) particularly para 97 and 99 in which discussing on fair investigation and fair trial, it has been observed that a proceedee is required to be provided with all reasonable opportunity and that a proceedee is required to be provided with certified copy of any public document, including the copy of the relevant electoral rolls. In the instant case, there is no allegation of non-supply of certified copies of documents. The issue involved is as to whether the petitioner could lead and prove in evidence towards discharge of burden of proof as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Admittedly, the petitioner did not produce the certified copies of the documents and only produced the photocopies of the documents. It is in such circumstances, the Tribunal rightly held that those documents are inadmissible in evidence. 15. Admittedly, the petitioner did not produce the certified copies of the documents and only produced the photocopies of the documents. It is in such circumstances, the Tribunal rightly held that those documents are inadmissible in evidence. 15. Even if the photocopies of the documents are considered to have been compared with the certified copies, although there is no proof of it, even then also the petitioner has miserably failed to prove her Indian citizenship discharging the burden of proof as per Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The documents (all photocopies) are, a certificate dated 24/03/2006 by which the marriage of the petitioner with one Md. Nur Mahammad was certified; voter list of 2005 containing the name of one Forida Khatun; voter list of 1965 containing the name of one Feizuddin ; voter list of 1970 containing the same name ; voter list of 1979 containing the name of Forida Khatun etc. Apart from the fact that in the voter list of 1970 there is over-writing in respect of serial nos. and name. The petitioner also failed to prove that the name of Feizuddin is relatable to her as she failed to establish any linkage. 16. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed upholding the impugned judgement and order. Consequently, the Superintendent of Police (B), Morigaon shall apprehend the petitioner immediately and confine her in the detention camp till such time she is deported to her country of origin. 17. Let the matter be listed again after one month so as to submit report by the Superintendent of Police (B) Morigaon and the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon, about the action taken in the terms of this order. 18. The Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon shall ensure deletion of the name of the petitioner from the voter list, if any. 19. Registry shall send down the case records to the learned court below along with a copy of this judgement and order. A copy of the judgement and order may also be furnished to Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned State Counsel for his immediate necessary follow up action. Copies shall also be sent to the SP(B), Morigaon and Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon, for their immediate follow up action.