2001 (8) TMI 774 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand for copies of pre-recorded statements of enlisted witnesses under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
2. Entitlement of the petitioner to the copies under relevant rules and natural justice.
3. Resistance by the respondents to supply the copies.
4. Legal provisions and judgments supporting the petitioner's demand.
5. Appointment of Enquiry and Presentation Officers.
6. Whether withholding the copies would cause prejudice to the petitioner.
7. Compliance with the rules for supplying documents and statements to the delinquent employee.
8. Application of rules of natural justice in providing necessary elements for the defense.
9. Recent Supreme Court judgment on supplying copies of witness statements.

Analysis:

The petitioner, a former Additional Commissioner (Customs), sought copies of pre-recorded statements of enlisted witnesses under Section 108 of the Customs Act to prepare his defense against a charge-sheet issued after almost a decade. The respondents resisted the demand, leading to the petitioner's inability to file a written statement and the appointment of Enquiry and Presentation Officers. The petitioner argued his entitlement to the copies under relevant rules and natural justice, citing provisions of the Evidence Act, CCS (CCA) Rules, and legal precedents. The respondents contended that the matter was now under the Enquiry Officer's purview and accused the petitioner of attempting to prolong the inquiry process.

The High Court examined the dispute, emphasizing the delinquent employee's right to a fair opportunity to prepare a defense. The Court found no justification for the respondents' resistance to supplying the copies, noting that withholding them could prejudice the petitioner. Legal provisions, including Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules and a Government of India instruction, mandated the delivery of statements of enlisted witnesses to the delinquent employee. The Court highlighted the distinction between a document and a statement of enlisted witnesses, emphasizing the importance of providing all necessary elements for the defense to avoid prejudice.

Referring to a recent Supreme Court judgment, the High Court directed the respondents to furnish the petitioner with the copies of pre-recorded statements two weeks before the prosecution evidence commences. The Court allowed the Enquiry Officer to proceed with the inquiry, which should be concluded within six months from the petitioner's appearance. This decision aimed to balance the petitioner's right to prepare a defense with the procedural requirements of the inquiry, ensuring a fair and timely resolution of the matter.