STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. IBRAHIM MOHOMED HUSSEIN MADDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above criminal revision application raises an important question under Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.

(2.) THE application is filed by the State against an order passed on September 18, 1973 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thana, over -ruling an objection raised by the special public prosecutor to a question being asked to the prosecution witness, in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1973, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the sixty -rive opponents in the above revision application. The said opponents are charged by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 332, 149, 152 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, as mentioned in the charge, with regard to certain incidents which occurred in the communal riots in Bhiwandi in May 1970. It is not necessary to mention, for the purposes of this revision application, the details of the said charge.

(3.) AFTER this admission of the witness, the following question was asked to him: Did you state in the said affidavit filed before Madon Commission that you had noticed Gulam Rasul accused No. 5 and his two sons aged 20 or 22 years throwing stones, acid bulbs, sticks and glass bottles through the two windows of Hidayatulla Manzil at the processsionists? At this stage, the learned special public prosecutor who appeared for the State, objected to the question on the ground that Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act prohibits the use of the statement made before the Commission for the purpose of contradicting the witness.