9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority, Cross-examination of Witness, Revision Petition
Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority: The revision petition challenged an order dropping charges against two respondents due to the unavailability of a crucial witness, Mohd. Thamby, for cross-examination. The petitioner argued that the Adjudicating Authority exceeded jurisdiction by considering additional issues beyond the limited point of re-consideration. The Authority was criticized for not linking transactions of Mohd. Thamby to the respondents and disregarding evidence from earlier proceedings. The petitioner contended that the Authority should have applied the principles of the Evidence Act and Supreme Court precedents. Cross-examination of Witness: The absence of Mohd. Thamby for cross-examination was central to the case. Despite remands for re-adjudication emphasizing the necessity of his testimony, the witness remained unavailable. The disappearance of Mohd. Thamby led to the Adjudicating Authority dropping the charges against the respondents. The respondent No. 2 submitted that the Special Director (Enforcement) acted in accordance with the final order of the Appellate Board, justifying the dismissal of the revision petition. Revision Petition: The respondent No. 2 argued against the revision petition on various grounds, including the extraordinary nature of revising orders, the petitioner's non-compliance with directions, and the significant time lapse since the events in question. The respondent contended that the Adjudicating Authority appropriately followed the remand order by dropping charges in the absence of the key witness. The Chairperson, after considering the submissions, found no fault in the impugned order and dismissed the revision petition, emphasizing the critical role of Mohd. Thamby's unavailability in the decision. This judgment underscores the importance of witness testimony and the impact of non-appearance on legal proceedings. It highlights the limitations of Adjudicating Authorities when crucial evidence is missing, leading to the dismissal of charges. The case serves as a reminder of the procedural complexities involved in revising orders and the need for adherence to legal principles and precedents in such matters.
|
