19 . A careful analysis of the evidence tendered by the petitioner would reveal that petitioner had failed to establish his presence on Indian soil prior to 25-03-1971, which is the cut off date for identification of foreigners in the State of Assam as per Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, as amended. Exhibit 2 would be of no assistance to the petitioner because presence of Natbor Shil in India prior to 25-03-1971 itself could not be proved. This is because in Exhibit 1 (1970), the voter was Matubor Shil, son of Chandra Kumar, aged 30 years; he was a resident of village Salmari; whereas in Exhibit 2 (1985), the name of the voter was Natbor Shil, son of Chand Shil, aged 60 years. He was a resident of Hayang village. In addition to the discrepancies in name and residence, if Matubor Shil and Natbor Shil would have been one and the same person, he would have been 45 years of age in 1985 and not 60. Therefore, it cannot be said for sure that Matubor Shil of Exhibit 1 and Natbor Shil of Exhibit 2 was one and the same person !! That apart, what happened to his wife of Natbor or the mother of the petitioner ? We do not know her name; neither did her name appear in Exhibit 1 nor in Exhibit 2.
