2018 (10) TMI 46 - HC - Customs

Principles of Natural Justice - cross-examination of witnesses not allowed - Held that - Admittedly, the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the witness of the prosecution. According to the department, the request was made late and after the conclusion of the second date of hearing. According to the petitioner, even if that be so, the adjudicating authority was obliged to deal with the request for cross-examination in the impugned order - Principles of natural justice require the adjudicating authority to allow a respondent in a proceeding to cross-examine the witness produced by the prosecution. In the present case, a request was made by the petitioner before the adjudicating authority for cross-examining the witness of the prosecution. Such request was made on May 28, 2018 - Such request was received on such date at 4.20 p.m. The hearing was concluded before such request was made. However, the adjudicating authority did not deal with such request in the impugned order. The impugned order in original is set aside - the adjudicating authority will consider and decide the application dated May 28, 2018 made by the petitioner for grant of an opportunity to cross-examine the witness of the prosecution.

Summary

Issues: Breach of principles of natural justice in an order in original.

The judgment delivered by the High Court of Calcutta pertains to a writ petition challenging an order in original dated May 31, 2018, on the grounds of breach of principles of natural justice. The petitioner, through their advocate, argued that they were denied the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witness despite submitting a request before the adjudicating authority. The advocate relied on previous judgments where similar issues led to the setting aside of impugned orders. The department's advocate contended that the petitioner's non-appearance on the second hearing date justified the impugned order. The court noted the importance of allowing cross-examination as per principles of natural justice and highlighted the petitioner's timely request for cross-examination on May 28, 2018, which was not addressed in the impugned order.

The court emphasized that natural justice requires the adjudicating authority to permit cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. Despite the department's argument that the request was made late, the court found that the authority should have addressed the request in the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, allowing the adjudicating authority to continue the proceedings from the stage of the cross-examination request. The court also clarified that since the order imposing penalties was vitiated by the breach of natural justice and subsequently quashed, there was no basis to direct the petitioner to provide any security. As a result, the writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of adhering to principles of natural justice, particularly regarding the right to cross-examine witnesses in proceedings. The court's decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the cross-examination request showcases the importance of procedural fairness in legal proceedings.