9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Director is absolutely silent. In this given situation, the Single Judge’s conclusion that cross-examination cannot be sought as a matter of right in respect of witnesses is correct. At the same time, what appears to have been overlooked in the impugned order is that, apart from the Investing Officer, other witnesses’ examination too, was sought. The Special Director did not deal with that aspect in any manner. In the circumstances, the appellant shall approach the Special Director within three weeks spelling out the reasons why the cross-examination of the witnesses other than the IO is needed. - LPA 57/2018 and CM APPL. 5630-5631/2018 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2018 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. A. K. CHAWLA JJ. Appellant Through Mr. Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complaint. Merits and de-merits of the allegations contained in the SCN/Complaint and replies filed by noticees are duly taken into account at the stage of Adjudicating Proceedings, besides providing adequate opportunities to the noticees for making oral and written arguments/submissions during the course of personal hearings. Therefore, the request of the noticees to seek the cross-examination is required to be considered having regard to provisions contained in the said adjudication, rules as elaborated above and it cannot be considered as a matter of right. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment of this Court in Shahid Balwa vs. The Directorate of Enforcement, (2013) 201 DLT 211 and states that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght the Investigating Officer s cross-examination inasmuch as, according to him, examination as to the conclusion in his report was necessary. The appellant, at the same time requested for cross-examination of the other witnesses, whose statements were on record by the Directorate of Enforcement. So far as statements of these witnesses or individuals are concerned, the order of the Special Director is absolutely silent. In this given situation, the Single Judge s conclusion that cross-examination cannot be sought as a matter of right in respect of witnesses is correct. At the same time, what appears to have been overlooked in the impugned order is that, apart from the Investing Officer, other witnesses examination too, was sought. The Spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
