SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(Gau) 3

B.L.HANSARIA, T.C.DAS
State of Assam – Appellant
Versus
Suprabhat Bhadra and 14 Ors. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
N.M.Lahiri, A.M.Mazumdar, C.R.De, G.Sahewalla, M.Z.Ahmed

Hansaria, J.-

This is a reference under section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Sessions Judge, Nowgong soliciting this Court's opinion on an important question of law. The same is whether a witness in a criminal trial can be allowed to be contradicted with reference to the statement made by him before a Commission of Inquiry constituted under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, hereinafter the Act.

2. In the case before the learned Sessions Judge, some per­sons were facing trial under various section of law, including 302 IP'C, One of the charges was that the unlawful assembly had caused the death of one Anil Bora at Hojai Town. To inquire into the circumstances leading to the death of aforesaid Anil, a Commission of Inquiry under the Act had been constituted and which had submitted its report. A petition was, therefore, filed before the trial court on 27.6,80 stating that many charge-sheeted witnesses were examined before the aforesaid Commission, and so for the ends of justice and for proper defence of the accused, the statements of these witnesses before the Commission should be called for. The Presiding Officer by an order dated 5.7.80 allowed this prayer a
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top