Arguments

2.10 Before hearing the arguments on the terms of references, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the question whether the Indian Evidence Act, 172 would apply to the proceedings of this inquiry. Ms Chandreyee Alam, Shri Rudrajyoti Bhattacharjee and Shri Keshab Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel appearing for some of the parties, and Shri Tarakeswar Pal, the learned Counsel appearing for the Government of India have submitted, in one voice, that the above act has no manner of application to the proceedings of an inquiry of a Commission appointed under the Act (as the present one) and in support of their contention relied upon some decisions cited by the learned Counsel, there are quite a number of others decisions of the High Courts and the Supreme Court - which the Commission could lay hands on - wherein it has been laid down, in no uncertain terms, that the Evidence Act does not apply to such an inquiry. To eschew prolixity it will be appropriate to detail the reasons that have weighed with the High Courts and the Supreme Court in arriving at their such conclusions instead of citing the decisions and referring to their contents in extenso. The reasons are:

i) A Commission appointed under the Act doest not decide any dispute;

ii) There are no parties before the Commission, there is not lis ad the Commission is not a \\'Court\\' within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act;

iii) The Commission is a fact finding body meant only to instruct the mind of the Government without producing any document of a judicial nature much less an enforceable one;

iv) It is not asked to give a decision as to the respective rights and liabilities and no defendant or any accused person to be tried; and

vi) The mere fact that the procedure adopted by the Commission is of a legal character and it has power to administer oath will not impart to it the status of a \\'Court\\'.

2.10.1 Though in view of the principles so laid down the technical rules of the Evidence Act will not govern the admissibility of evidence before it, it cannot be gainsaid that to obviate injustice and to demonstrate fair play the Commission has to, in holding its inquiry, conform to the cardinal rules relating to reception of evidence. To strike a balance between these two apparently conflicting considerations it will be meet and proper and to treat any material brought before it as evidence which is legally probative for a prudent mind but not admissible in accordance with the strict and sophisticated rules of the Evidence Act which governs, inter alia, reception of evidence in criminal and civil cases except that it (the Commission) will not be justified in relying upon those parts of the testimonies of the witnesses and of the documents which are based solely on hearsay, result of investigation or expressions of opinion (except those of experts) and belief.

2.10.2 Keeping in view the above yardstick relating to reception of evidence in this inquiry, the deponents and/or their Counsel were asked to make their submissions on the issues (the terms of reference) before the Commission. In response thereto Ms Chandreyee Alam, Shri Keshab Bhattacharjee, Shri Rudrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Shri Supriyo Bose, the learned Counsel apeparing for some of the deponents, Shri Tarakeswar Pal, - the learned Counsel appearing for Government of India and deponets Dr Madhusudan Pal, Professor Nandala Chakrabarti, Dr Sustanta Mitra, Shri Kanailal Basu, Dr Bijoy Ketan Mukherjee, Shri Sukhendu Kumar Baur, Shri Subhas Ranjan Dasgupa and Shri Satyabrata Tapadar made their respective submissions in detail. Some of them have filed written arguments also to supplement their oral submissions.

Consequent upon the conclusion of the arguments the findings on the terms of reference are to be recorded and it be apposite to record the same at appropriate stages.

Back toJMCI report contents

Bookmark/Search this post with: