2018 (8) TMI 1350 - HC - Customs

Scope of the right of persons involved in quasi judicial proceedings to adduce oral evidence and cross-examine persons - statements of persons forming part of the materials against them - principles of natural justice - Held that - No doubt, principles of natural justice have been held to be sacrosanct and have been placed at a high pedestal in the adjudication proceedings which are judicial, quasi judicial or administrative. The question as to which of the principles of natural justice or which of the facets of it is applicable, would depend on the nature of the litigation and the statute under which the adjudication is undertaken. It is settled by now that every departure from principles of natural justice may not result in miscarriage of justice, unless prejudice is caused or demonstrated (useless formality theory). The question as to what extent the principles of natural justice needs to be stretched in a given case has to be considered with an element of flexibility. The question as to whether in a given case, the decision declining permission to adduce evidence or cross examine persons is correct can be considered only after the conclusion of proceedings, having regard to the prejudice, if any, caused to the party on account of the same. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Right of persons in quasi-judicial proceedings to adduce oral evidence and cross-examine.
2. Permission to cross-examine individuals and examine Custom Officers in two separate cases.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice in quasi-judicial proceedings.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Right of persons in quasi-judicial proceedings to adduce oral evidence and cross-examine:
The petitioners in two separate cases sought permission to cross-examine individuals and Custom Officers to discredit statements and establish facts. The court deliberated on whether noticees in quasi-judicial proceedings have the right to cross-examine individuals and adduce oral evidence. The court emphasized the importance of fair hearing and the opportunity to rebut allegations. It was discussed whether the competent authority is obligated to permit cross-examination merely for the sake of asking, and whether noticees are entitled to adduce oral evidence as a right. The court examined whether issues of non-compliance with natural justice principles could be raised before the culmination of proceedings under Article 226.

Issue 2: Permission to cross-examine individuals and examine Custom Officers:
In one case, the petitioner requested to cross-examine persons whose statements were used against them, while in another case, the petitioner sought to examine Custom Officers present during the inspection of imported goods. The court acknowledged the importance of cross-examination and examination of witnesses in quasi-judicial proceedings. It was highlighted that the decision to decline permission for evidence or cross-examination could be reviewed after the conclusion of proceedings to assess any prejudice caused.

Issue 3: Violation of principles of natural justice in quasi-judicial proceedings:
The court discussed the significance of principles of natural justice in judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative proceedings. It was noted that not allowing cross-examination of a person whose statement forms the basis of an order could render the order a nullity, violating natural justice principles. However, if the order is based on materials other than the statement, the absence of cross-examination may not vitiate the order. The court emphasized the need for flexibility in applying natural justice principles based on the circumstances of each case.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that approaching the court under Article 226 before the conclusion of proceedings was premature. The judgment highlighted the importance of fair hearing, cross-examination, and examination of witnesses in quasi-judicial proceedings, while also emphasizing the discretion of the adjudicating authority in permitting evidence and cross-examination.

---