Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

And in witness whereof, I put my signature on this 20th day of November 1999 at Guwahati. 

Identified by						Sd/-
      Sd/-				   (Ram Prasad Sarmah)
(Sun Barman)				      Deponent
(Advocate's Clerk)
       20.11.99
						  SEAL
					OATH COMMISSIONER"

The only grievance is that the stamp and the name of the Oath Commissioner is not indicated in the true copy of the affidavit. We feel that if it was there it would have been better but absence of stamp and the name of Oath Commissioner will not be a vital or material deviation from the original nor it may in any manner mislead the returned candidate. Prima facie on perusal of the heading of the affidavit and detailed verification of the contents of the paragraphs, as indicated above, would normally lead one to believe that the averments have been made on affidavit. In Paragraph one of the affidavit there is a specific mention that the petitioner was acquainted with the facts of the case for the purpose of swearing of the affidavit in support of contention of corrupt practices taken recourse to by Respondent No.1 and respondent No.7. In the end the petitioner signs as 'deponent' and he is identified by Advocate's Clerk. That being the position, mere omission of indicating the name of the Oath Commissioner or an endorsement in the true copy that the affidavit was attested by an Oath Commissioner bearing his stamp and seal etc. would not be material. Once an averment is there that affidavit was being sworn in support of allegations of corrupt practices and that the petitioner had put his signature, thereon, prima facie fulfillment of such a legal requirement is adequately reflected even in absence of name and seal etc. of Oath Commissioner in the true copy.