9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n reading of the order without requiring more inquiry into the matter. Equally, a review may be maintained when a material fact is erroneously not noticed or the obvious inferences not drawn therefrom. Review is also permitted if some new material comes to light, if such material could not have been placed earlier despite the best diligence. In the present case, the Court noticed that an opportunity to cross- examine some witness had not been given to the review petitioner but, in the same breath, the Court observed that an immediate objection in such regard was not taken by the petitioner. Further, the Court found that the penalty imposed on the petitioner was nominal and that the petitioner had not, at the outset, indicated that the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner which had, subsequently, been confiscated. 2. The review petitioner says that this Court fell into error in failing to appreciate that the confessional statement of August 22, 2016 attributed to the petitioner may not have been made by the petitioner and that no reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was afforded to the petitioner. According to the review petitioner, there is an error apparent on the face of the order of this Court dated November 29, 2021. 3. At the outset, a distinction has to be made between the grounds that may be available in the course of an appeal and the grounds that may be invoked in seeking review of an order. There is a considerable multiplication of the exercise in a bad habit taking r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssession. It may have been an erroneous inference drawn from the facts that were presented before the Court, but it is not an error apparent on the face of the order that calls for a review. 6. Again, while not interfering with the order passed by the Tribunal this Court noticed that a criminal case was pending against the petitioner and the Court observed that in the pending proceedings, the petitioner would be entitled to cross-examine any witness whose statement may be used against the petitioner in the course of the proceedings. Thus, the apparent finality of the statement of the relevant witness has been undone, and, in the criminal proceedings that the petitioner faces, the petitioner has been specifically given a right to cross-ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
