9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (3) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er receipt of reply and after affording personal hearing, the Deputy Collector (Preventive) Gold Control, Bombay ordered absolute confiscation of the seized gold and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on Shri Manilal P. Jain. The appellant herein carried the matter in appeal to the Collector (Appeals) unsuccessfully and hence this appeal. 3. At the outset Shri Wazifdar submitted that the order passed by the authorities below is bad in law inasmuch as there had been a denial of the principles of natural justice. He contended that request to cross-examine the Panchas was denied to the appellant and he was, therefore, prejudiced in his defence. He could not establish to the satisfaction of the authorities below that the kada seized by the gold control officers was not primary gold but an ornament. He submitted that if the above contention is acceptable the matter requires to be remanded for consideration afresh. He also complained that disregarding the expert s evidence, the Deputy Collector as well as the Collector (Appeals) had based their findings on their own personal observation as if they were the experts. The very approach of the authorities, to say the least, was improper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce or record must be placed before him for his information, to comment and criticism. That is all is meant by the doctrine above quoted. No natural justice requires that there should be a kind of formal cross-examination. Formal cross-examination is procedural justice. It is governed by Rules of Evidence. It is the creation of Courts and not a part of natural justice but of legal and statutory justice. It is agreed that natural justice certainly includes that any statement of a person before it is accepted against somebody else, that somebody else should have an opportunity of meeting it whether it is by way of interrogation or by way of comment, does not matter. So long as the party charged has a fair and reasonable opportunity, to see, comment, and criticise the evidence, statement or record on which the charge has been made against him, the demands and test of natural justice are satisfied. Cross-examination in that sense is not the technical cross-examination in a Court of Law in the Witness Box. (Kishanlal Agarwal v. Collector of Land Customs, AIR 1967 Cat. 80 at page 87). From the above judgment and also from personal experience, it is clear that cross-examination is not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nciples of natural justice. 9. The Deputy Collector, who held the adjudication, was of the view that cross-examination is not a part of the requirement of natural justice. He has further observed that quasi-judicial authorities are ignorant of Rules of Evidence. It is further stated in his order that the adjudicating officer who is ignorant of the Rules of Evidence will not be in a position to judge which question in cross-examination can be allowed and which cannot be. This ignorance, according to the Deputy Collector, may lead to serious miscarriage of justice in so far as the department is concerned. He has further observed when there was no Examination-in-Chief, the question of cross-examination does not arise. 10. The reasons assigned by the Deputy Collector for not allowing cross-examination of certain witnesses are mostly irrelevant. It is true that ordinarily in an adjudication proceeding there is no procedure like examination of witness. Therefore, there would be no Examination-in-chief, Cross-examination and re-examination as are being done in the courts of law. But then, whenever a request for cross-examination of any witness is granted, the statement earlier recorde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y with the principles of natural justice. Broadly stated the requirements of the principles of natural justice are fair opportunity to adduce evidence, opportunity to cross-examination of either side with regard to the evidence produced and relied on by the adjudicating authority. But then, the adjudicating officer is required to exercise his discretion as to whether he should permit cross-examination of all the witnesses or some alone. This discretion has to be exercised not arbitrarily or capriciously but judicially. While considering the request for cross-examination the adjudicating authority is required to bear in mind the nature of the allegations, the defence taken, the motive behind seeking cross-examination and further whether rejecting of the request would result in grave miscarriage of justice. 15. Though the adjudicating authority may refuse cross-examination of the informants for justifiable reasons, he should invariably allow cross-examination of seizing officers and the panch witnesses as well as the witness who do not come under the category of the informants but on whose evidence the adjudicating authority places reliance. The adjudicating authority should bear i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factured and worn in the rural areas. Therefore, goldsmith panch was a competent person to give opinion as to the manufacture of kada in rural areas and also whether kada was considered as an ornament in the rural areas. If the cross-examination of the panch witness had been allowed it would have enabled the appellant to rebut the allegation made against him and also established his defence. Both the authorities on extraneous and irrelevant consideration disallowed cross-examination. 19. The Deputy Collector had relied on the statement of Shri Vasantrao Shankar Rao in support of his conclusion that the appellant was dealing in gold and thereby contravened Section 27(1) of the Gold (Control) Act. The Deputy Collector, however, rejected the request to cross-examine Shri Vasantrao Shankar Rao which in the circumstances of the case was unjust and improper. In the whole of his order the Deputy Collector did not even whisper that the request to cross-examine the witnesses was intended to protract the proceedings or was not required to rebut the allegations or to establish the defence. The adjudicating authority had not exercised his discretion property. The Appellate Collector s reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
