Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 does not prohibit the use of statements made before a Commission for contradiction under section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT-This is a revision application by the accused against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F. C., Jalgaon, which is confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, rejecting their prayer for a summons for production of earlier statements of some of the prosecution witnesses.

2. The relevant facts are as follows: Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the proprietors of "Sohanlal Pahaladrai Solvent Extraction Plant, Jalgaon," and accused No.3 is the Manager of the said plant. On March 17, 1961, there was an explosion in the said plant and 23 employees died and eight more employees sustained injuries. The State Government appointed a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to inquire, among of the Uunga, into the cause of the said explosion. This Commission was appointed in April 1962. The Commission recorded the evidence of several persons. After the inquiry a charge-sheet was submitted against the present accused under sections 286, 287 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code. This charge-sheet was submitted in May 1962. Many of the persons, who gave evidence before the Commission, are cited as prosecution witnesses. During the course of the trial the accused applied to the learned trial Magistrate that summons should be issued to the then D. S. P. Jalgaon under section 94, Criminal Procedure Code, asking him to produce the statements of the prosecution witnesses made before the above said Commission. The accused stated that copies of these statements were supplied to the accueed while inquiry before the Commission was going on and that these statements of prosecution witnesses before the Commission were required at the trial for contradicting the prosecution witnesses under section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, if occasion for the same arises.

3. Both the learned trial Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge held that in view of section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, the statements of prosecution witnesses before the Commission could not be used to contradict them at a subsequent trial, hence the accused application for a summons to get those statements produced was rejected. It is against this decision .that the present revision application is preferred by the accused.

4. Mr. Nain, who appears for the petitioner-accused, contends that the interpretation put upon section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, by the Courts below is erroneous. Section 6 reads thus:-

"6. No statement made by a person in the course of giving evidence before the Commission shall subject him to or be used against him in, any civil or criminal proceeding except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such statement:

Provided that the statement-

(a) is made in reply to a question which he is required by the Commission to answer. or

(b) is relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry."

Mr. Naia contends that reading section 6 as a whole it is clear that the protection afforded by this section is against fastening any civil or criminal liability on a person appearing as a witness before a Commission to give evidence, because of any statement in his evidence before the Commission. Mr. Nain contends that the words "No statement shall be used against him" in section 6 cannot be interpreted to mean that such a statement cannot be used for any purpose whatever. Mr. Nain also relies on the words "except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such statement" to contend that these words by necessary implication indicate that a statement before the Commi8S~on can be used and proved to show that the witness making that statement has thereby deliberately given false evidence before the Commission. In my opinion, there is considerable force in these contentions.

5. As stated by Mr. Rane, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, there is no doubt that section 6 is intended to encourage people to come forth and give evidence before a Commission without being apprehensive of civil or crimin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document