2019 (7) TMI 1087 - HC - Customs

Principles of Natural Justice - petitioner was denied of an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses from whom statements have been recorded by the authority - existence or not of conspiracy agreement with certain named and unknown persons for the purpose of procuring smuggled gold - HELD THAT - The Court in case of DEEPAK KUMAR VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2017 (7) TMI 882 - MADRAS HIGH COURT had come to the conclusion that there was no violation of principles of natural justice, since the petitioner therein had not challenged the denial of the request to cross examine and in case when the request for such cross examination has been rejected, then it is for the next fact finding authority to go into the same as to whether such denial is justifiable or not. In the instant case, when the petitioner has sought for a request to cross examine, the same came to be denied. Thereafter, the petitioner had also raised this before the Appellate Authority, which was also rejected for the reasons already discussed. As such, the facts involved in the aforesaid case is totally in contra to the issue in the present writ petition and thereby the proposition laid down therein, may not be applicable to the present case. - this Court is of the affirmed view that the petitioner can be granted an opportunity to cross examine the three witnesses viz., Maheswaran, Dhamodharan, Abdul Azeez, which exercise should be completed within a stipulated time. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Opportunity for cross-examination denied to petitioner, Admission of conspiracy charge, Mandatory nature of cross-examination, Violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, the Managing Director of a corporation, was accused of entering into a conspiracy agreement to procure smuggled gold. The denial of an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses who provided statements against the petitioner was the primary ground for the challenge in the writ petition.

2. The petitioner contended that he did not admit to the conspiracy charge and sought permission to cross-examine the witnesses. However, the authority denied this request, arguing that the petitioner's admissions in his statement made cross-examination unnecessary.

3. The respondents supported the denial of cross-examination, citing a Supreme Court decision that stated it was not mandatory if the petitioner had made admissions in their statement before the authority. The Appellate Authority also relied on a different Supreme Court decision to hold that cross-examination was not mandatory in all quasi-judicial proceedings.

4. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court decision that emphasized the importance of allowing cross-examination when contesting the truthfulness of witness statements. The denial of cross-examination was considered a serious flaw in such circumstances.

5. The respondents referenced a Division Bench decision and a Single Judge decision from the High Court to argue that the denial of cross-examination did not violate principles of natural justice. The Single Judge decision highlighted the importance of challenging the denial of cross-examination at the appropriate stage.

6. The High Court, after considering the arguments and precedents cited, concluded that the petitioner should be granted the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses in question. The Court set aside the previous order and remanded the matter back to the authority for this purpose within a specified time frame.

7. The Court clarified that its decision did not express any views on the merits of the case and allowed the authority to pass orders in accordance with the law. The judgment was specific to the petitioner's request for cross-examination and would not affect others involved in the proceedings.

Conclusion:
The High Court granted the petitioner the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, emphasizing the importance of this right in challenging witness statements and ensuring procedural fairness. The judgment focused on upholding principles of natural justice and providing a fair hearing to the petitioner in the quasi-judicial proceedings.