9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement was also recorded from the petitioner, but, the petitioner promptly retracted the statement on 29-12-1985. A show cause notice was issued on 13-6-1986. The petitioner submitted his replies on 2-12-1986, 6-12-1986 and February, 1987. Personal hearing was given. Witnesses were examined and written submissions were also called for. It is the case of the petitioner that the evidence adduced by him at the enquiry clearly tallies with his case and the expert opinion on the value and weight of the diamonds. In short, according to the petitioner, if on the basis of the materials already collected, the adjudication proceeds, the petitioner is confident that the charge against the petitioner will automatically fail. It is at this juncture, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudicating authority to suggest or order a reinvestigation into the matter. The further argument is that if such a power is conceded considerable prejudice will be caused to the parties against whom action is taken. This is because the entire evidence has been let in and according to the petitioner, the documents have been filed to show that the diamonds were purchased from Bombay, and are legitimate. It is suggested that there is no room for doubting the value of the goods as found by the experts and as disclosed in the evidence adduced by the petitioner. While so, solely with a view to get over the defence case, the second respondent has now resorted to the procedure of re-assaying the goods. According to the petitioner, the whole ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in that sense, the petitioner cannot claim any prejudice. But, if one goes deeper into the matter, one can easily understand the prejudice that will be caused to the parties if the second respondent is permitted to have such powers, especially, after the entire evidence is over. It is something like a Commissioner appointed in Civil Court giving his report, and without any reason, the Commissioner being directed to give a fresh report. This is precisely what has happened in this case, because, the second respondent proceeds to direct re-assay of the goods without any reason at all. I am convinced that the evidence by way of documents which have been produced by the petitioner in answer to the show cause notice may get nullified if ultimat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
