original copy of Ext.2. However, the said exhibit was rejected on the ground that though Ext.2 contained the name of Munindra Lal Dey, similarity in the name cannot be said to be of a person concerned unless most specific details are laid down negating all possibility of linking it to some other person. Moreover, the said exhibit was also discarded because in his evidence, the petitioner did not state that his father had cast any ballot in the year 1970 and because the petitioner had stated that his father had cast his ballot since the year 1965, 1971 and since then. In this regard the Tribunal has not given finding that a certified copy of the electoral roll of 1970 becomes a questioned document and the evidentiary value of Ext.2 was lost merely because the petitioner did not state that his father had cast his ballot in 1970. As per Ext.3, the age of petitioner was 15 years 5 months and 29 days as on 01.03.1979, therefore, in all probability, the petitioner would have been born on 02.09.1963 and it is very unlikely that the petitioner would have personal knowledge that his father had cast his ballot in the year 1970. Moreover, after the learned Tribunal had called for authenticity verification report, which was received in the affirmative from the Election Officer, Dibrugarh, the Court is of the considered opinion that deficiencies, if any, in the mode and manner of proof of Ext.2 has been cured by the learned Tribunal after receipt of the authenticity verification report in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the rejection of the Ext.2 as not proved is found and held to be perverse.
