2018 (4) TMI 1541 - HC - Customs

Principles of Natural Justice - cross-examination - whether the petitioner is entitled as of right to cross-examine the DRI officials and panchas even if they have not been led as witnesses by the Revenue? - Held that - if the Revenue has led the evidence of any DRI officer or pancha witness, the petitioner will be entitled to cross-examine that witness and this opportunity cannot be denied on the ground that it is unnecessary . The petitioner may also be make out the sufficient cause to interpose the cross-examination of a DRI official or pancha (whose evidence was led by the Revenue) before resuming the cross-examination of the witness Sahu. Finally, there is a question of documents and materials seized by the DRI during his search and seizure operation. If DRI intends to rely on any of these documents, the petitioner and his counsel are entitled to inspection of all these materials and to use them in a manner permissible in law during the cross-examination or arguments. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to final order of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Breach of natural justice in the adjudication process - Cross-examination rights of the petitioner - Closure of witness cross-examination - Right to cross-examine DRI officials and panchas - Inspection of seized documents - Adverse inference against Revenue for not leading evidence - Jurisdictional question raised in the petition.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Final Order:
The writ petition under Article 226 challenged the final order issued by the Additional Director General (Adjudication) of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The Court found that the order could not be sustained due to a breach of fundamental rules of natural justice in the adjudication process.

2. Cross-Examination Rights:
The petitioner, a promoter-director of a company, sought to cross-examine witnesses involved in the case. The Court highlighted two main issues: the closure of a witness's cross-examination and the petitioner's entitlement to cross-examine DRI officials and panchas even if not led as witnesses by the Revenue.

3. Closure of Witness Cross-Examination:
The Court criticized the manner in which the order was passed, emphasizing that the right to cross-examine a witness should not be denied arbitrarily. It was established that the petitioner should be allowed to cross-examine witnesses whose evidence was led by the Revenue, and the closure of evidence in an improper manner was unacceptable.

4. Right to Cross-Examine DRI Officials and Panchas:
The Court clarified that the petitioner could cross-examine DRI officials and panchas if their evidence was led by the Revenue. The order set aside the previous decisions and directed the authority to permit the cross-examination of relevant witnesses while restricting the petitioner from cross-examining those not led by the Revenue.

5. Inspection of Seized Documents:
Regarding documents seized by the DRI, the Court granted the petitioner and counsel the right to inspect these materials for use during cross-examination or arguments. The petitioner was to be given sufficient time after inspection to commence or recommence cross-examination, ensuring a fair adjudication process.

6. Adverse Inference and Jurisdictional Question:
The judgment allowed the petitioner to argue for an adverse inference if the Revenue failed to lead the evidence of a particular witness. Additionally, all rights and contentions of both parties, including jurisdictional issues raised in the petition, were expressly kept open for further consideration.

In conclusion, the Court made the rule absolute with specific directions on cross-examination, document inspection, and maintaining fairness in the adjudication process, while leaving the question of costs undetermined.