9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition seeking direction to restrain a Judge appointed as a Commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act from commencing an inquiry until the conclusion of criminal cases against the petitioners. Analysis: The petitioners sought to prevent a Judge appointed as a Commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act from commencing an inquiry until the conclusion of criminal cases against them. The government appointed the Judge to inquire into the strained relations between two communities in certain villages and the conduct of district officials during specific incidents. The petitioners argued that the inquiry would prejudice their criminal trial, create public opinion against them, and influence witnesses. However, the court found the petitioners' apprehension unfounded, emphasizing that the inquiry focused on public importance matters, not individual conduct during the incidents. The court clarified that the inquiry did not overlap with the criminal trial issues, as it aimed to examine the circumstances leading to the events, not the events themselves. The court highlighted the provision of Section 6 of the Act, which clearly stated that statements made before the Commission could not be used against individuals in civil or criminal proceedings, except in cases of false evidence. The court dismissed the petitioners' concern that statements made before the Commission could affect their criminal trial, citing Supreme Court precedents. The court also noted that the inquiry by the Commission was not a judicial proceeding of a court of law, emphasizing the inquisitional nature of the Commission's proceedings and its focus on fact-finding rather than adjudication. The court rejected the petitioners' reliance on previous cases to support their contention that the inquiry by the Commission would prejudice their trial. The court differentiated the present situation from cases where parallel inquiries interfered with ongoing criminal proceedings. Ultimately, the court concluded that there was no basis to restrain the Commission from conducting the inquiry as mandated. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and each party was directed to bear their own costs, with the security deposit to be refunded to the petitioners.
|
