9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for having received from the first appellant, a sum of Rs. 1,51,000 in consideration of receiving US $7,000 in Singapore by the first appellant. The first appellant is stated to have deposited, by way of pre-deposit, the entire penalty amount of Rs. 1 lakh. This Board, under its order of 7-2-1996 dispensed with the requirement of pre-deposit of the amount of penalty imposed on the second appellant. 2. Shri Gadoo is present for the respondent. Shri Ramanathan who argued the second appellant's dispensation application on 7-2-1996 had also made his submissions in regard to the merits of the case. After hearing both the parties, it was decided, on the plea advanced by Shri Gadoo, that the final order in that appeal (No. 446 of 1993) be made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd null and void. It has been submitted that the submissions made by the Investigating Officer were not made available to the appellant. It is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as being violative of the principles of natural justice on this ground alone. 5. In appeal No. 446 of 1993, the impugned order has been assailed on the above ground as taken in appeal No. 439 of 1993 as also the ground, among others, that the appellant had been denied the opportunity to cross examine the co-accused Shri Manish Kumar Dhandhania, the appellant in appeal No. 439 of 1993. 6. On a perusal of the impugned order itself, it cannot be disputed that the appellant had concluded his submissions during personal hearing on 8-4-1993. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring. 8. Shri Gadoo tried to argue that it is not obligatory on the part of the learned Adjudicating Officer to grant cross-examination, particularly, as in this case, if he finds that the first appellant would not be inclined to own up his statement under section 40 as the Act as in the reply to the show-cause notice, he had denied the statement to be voluntary. However, when it was pointed out that in that case the first appellant's statement ought not to have been taken into consideration for sustaining the charge against the appellant, Shri Gadoo had no answer. In my opinion, since the first appellant had made imputation of contravention against the second appellant, it was incumbent on the learned Adjudicating Officer to allow the cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
