SHRI DEBABRATA CHOUDHURY Vs. HARICHARAN KALITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises from the order dated 22.3.79 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Gauhati in Case No. 3060 of 1975. The Petitioner who is one of the accused in that case filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Gauhati for calling for the statements of the witnesses Harekrishna and four others who were examined before the. Emergency Excess Enquiry Authority for using the same under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. The learned Magistrate rejected the grayer holding that the documents cannot be called for in view of Section 6 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 for short the 'Act': hence the revision petition before this Court.

(2.) MR . P.C. Kataki, learned Counsel has drawn my attention to a decision of a Division Bench of our High Court reported in, (1982) 1 GLR 431, State of Assam v. Suprabhat Bhadra. In that case it has been held that Section 6 of the Act does not prohibit the use of the statement made before the Commission for limited purpose of contradiction under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. In this view of the matter the order of the learned Magistrate cannot be allowed to stand.

(3.) FOR the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.3.79 passed by the learned judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Gauhati in Case No. 3060/79 is set aside; and the case is sent back to the Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Gauhati to dispose of the petition in the light of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act and the above observation. I would like to request the learned Magistrate to dispose of the petition within a month from the receipt of the records.