SOHANLAL PAHLADRAI VAID Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 17th March 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 other things, 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, Cri. Pro. 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 accused 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 Commission 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's 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.