VAIDYA,J. - (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. After the examination -in -chief of prosecution witness No. 1 Jayasingh Sadashiv Nimbalkar, the police sub -inspector was over and in the course of the cross -examination, the witness admitted that he had filed an affidavit before Justice Madon Commission, constituted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 for inquiring into certain questions relating to the communal riots at Bhiwandi and some other places. The witnesses also admitted that the affidavit pertained to the course and causes of communal disturbances at Bhiwandi on May 7, 1970 and that he had described the incident dated May 7, 1970, in respect of which the opponents were charged in the sessions case, as it took place; and that the said affidavit was filed before Justice Madon Commission on September 24, 1970.
(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.;