Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.63 seconds)Section 9 in The Foreigners Act, 1946 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Foreigners Act, 1946 [Entire Act]
Article 355 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Coinage Act, 2011
The Illegal Migrants (Determination By Tribunals) Act, 1983
Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union Of India & Anr on 12 July, 2005
In such circumstances, the appellant ought to have
stated in his affidavit, or demonstrated by some documentary evidence,
that his ancestors had migrated from that village to the other village
where the appellant was reported to be residing, but, according to the
Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India and another, (2005) 5 SCC 665
Tribunal, there was no such claim by the appellant in his affidavit.
Therefore, the Tribunal discarded the probative value of those voter list
entries. Interestingly, the school leaving certificate on which heavy
reliance was placed by the appellant was also doubted as there appeared
no reason for it to have been obtained 10 years after passing from the
institution. Moreover, the headmaster of the school was not called for to
prove the authenticity of the certificate of which duplicate was produced.
Birad Mal Singhvi vs Anand Purohit on 2 August, 1988
This certificate was issued 28 years
thereafter on 09.01.2016. Such belated issuance would naturally cast
serious aspersion on the bonafides of such certificate which is heightened
by the unauthorised use of the State Emblem of India, that too, not as per
the statutory format. Thirdly and most importantly, the author of the said
certificate did not appear before the Tribunal alongwith the school
admission register to prove the contents of the said certificate, more
particularly, date of birth and relation with Lt. Jonab Ali. How the date of
birth in school certificate has to be proved has been settled by the
Supreme Court long back in Birad Mal Singhvi vs Anand Purohit reported
in 1988 (Supl) SCC 604 and further reiteration is not necessary. Therefore,
Ext. A besides not been proved, is also inadmissible in evidence."