Section 6 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 does not inhibit the use of the statement made by a witness before a Commission in a subsequent civil, criminal, or other proceeding for the purpose of contradicting the witness.

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 as he felt that "the statement made by witnesses before Commission can be used for corroboration and' 'contradiction under section 145 evidence Act." He, there­fore, ordered to call for the depositions from the Home Secre­tary. Then records, however, did not come even by 25.3.81 when a fresh prayer was made to call for the records. In the mean­time there was change in the incumbent of the office. The learned Sessions Judge who dealt with this matter on 25.3.81 felt that the record of Commission of Inquiry is inadmissible under section 6 of the Act. In view of the conflicting decision the point has been referred to this Court under section 395 of the Code. This is how the matter is before us.

3. Shri Lahiri who has appeared for the accused persons first raised a point that it was not open to the succeeding Ses­sions Judge to modify the order already passed in this regard by his predecessor. We do not propose to go into this aspect and dispose of the reference on this short ground inasmuch as the point is of Importance and needs decision at our hand for guidance of the subordinate judiciary.

4. To express our views on the point under reference, It section 6- of the Act be noted :

“Statements nude by persons to the Commission-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 original 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."

5. An analysis of this section brings out these proposition :

(1) No statement made by a person in the course of giving evidence before a Commission shall subject him to any civil or criminal proceeding : and

(2) no such statement shall be used against him in any civil or criminal proceeding.

(3) This embargo would not apply if the statement maker is being prosecuted for having given false evidence by such statement.

The restriction imposed by the proviso to the section may not detain us as it would be assumed that the requirement is satisfied for the statements in question. The first of the above three propositions presents no difficulty. This safeguard takes care of any probable direct harm to the person making the state­ment as it lays down that because of the statement made by him, the person shall not be subjected to any civil or criminal proceeding. To illustrate, if a person states before a Commission "I had burnt the house of A", A cannot file a suit cliaming damage against such person relying on that statement, nor can any criminal proceeding be started against the person because of the above statement.

6. The trouble maker is the seco