The revision petition arises from the Order dated 20.5.80 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 71 (D-M) 79. The petitioners who are the accused in that case filed an application before the learned Sessions Judgfg Darrang, Tezpur for calling for the statements of Anowar Hussain 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 Sessions Judge rejected the prayer holding that the documents cannot be called for in view of section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, for short; the 'Act'; hence the revision petition before this Court. 2. Mr. B. K. Ghosh, 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 vs. 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 Sessions Judge cannot be allowed to stand. 3. The decision in the said case is an authority on the pro­position that the statements of witnesses before the Commission can bloused for the purpose mentioned in Section 145 of the In­dian Evidence Act in a trial. The decision does not lay down that the Court can order the production of statements of wit­nesses before the Commission for inspection of a party in order to find out if there is any statement which can be used for the purpose of Sec. 145. Section 6 of the Act shows that a person gi­ves statement before the Commission under a guarantee that no statement made by him in the course of giving evidence before the Commission shall subject him to, or be used against him in, any civil or criminal proceedings except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such statement. Keeping in view the gu­arantee under Section 6 of the Act to a witness before the Commi­ssion, the power of the court is to be exercised based on sound and reasonable principles. Keeping in view the gu­arantee under Section 6 of the Act to a witness before the Commi­ssion, the power of the court is to be exercised based on sound and reasonable principles. Be that as it may, the jurisdiction of the court to order the production of any document is to be ex­ercised in the case where the court is satisfied that the produc­tion of any document will be necessary or desirable foe the pur­pose of trial or other proceedings. 4. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.5.80 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 71 (D-M) 79 is set aside and the case is sent back to the Sessions Judge, Darrang, Tezpur to dispose of the petition in this light of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act and the above observation. I request the teamed Sessions Judge, Darrang, Tezpur to dispose of the petition within a month from the receipt of the records. 5. With the above direction and observation, the petition is disposed of.