9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of personal hearing before the adjudicating authority in T-4/28-M/92/SDE. 2. The few facts which are necessary to understand the controversy which arises in this petition are as follows :- (A) On 12-8-1991, the officers of the respondent searched a person by name Sheriff who was about to board a flight bound for Singapore, as a result of which, the officers recovered certain documents. The said Sheriff also gave a statement implicating the petitioner Ibrahim to the effect that those documents were handed over to him by the petitioner for handing over the same to a person at Singapore. (B) In a follow-up action, the officers searched the room of the petitioner and seized the Indian and foreign currencies, gold chains an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner that his request for cross-examination of the witnesses had been rejected. He had also sent a notice on 22-4-1993 intimating the petitioner that the case was posted for personal hearing on 21-5-1993. At that stage, the petitioner thought it fit to file this writ petition seeking for the mandamus. 3. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the decision reported in 1987 Excise Customs Cases, Volume 13, page 248 = 1987 (31) E.L.T. 902 (Ker.) Director, Enforcement Directorate v. Fr. Alfrad James Fernandez is that the petitioner has got a right to appear in the adjudication proceedings in person before the Adjudicating Authorities and adduce evidence, which includes a right of cross-exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officer shall not be bound to observe the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872). 7. Under those circumstances, the adjudicating officer shall give required particulars to the petitioner to put-forth his case by way of giving an explanation to the show cause notice and in view of the specific bar put on Rule 3, the petitioner cannot, as of right, compel, the Adjudicating Authority to permit him to cross-examine the witnesses. 8. Further more, when the order rejecting the said request is appealable under Section 52(4), there is no reason for the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the writ petition. Consequently, the adjudication proceedings have been stayed, as a result of which, the same have been stalled f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the documents relied upon by the Authority. Instead of giving a suitable explanation, the petitioner did make a request in the letter dated 10-3-1993 asking for the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. This approach, in my view, is not only unwarranted, but also to make the Authority not to decide the issue in the quickest possible time. 11. When there is a Statute which requires the Authority to conduct the proceedings in a particular way, the petitioner cannot ask the Authority to deviate from that way and to allow him to cross-examine the witnesses which is not permissible as per the aforesaid Rule. As such, I do not find any infirmity in the order rejecting the prayer to permit the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
