Cross-examination of mahazar witnesses was necessary where the seizure memo was central to proving non-accountal under gold control law.

In adjudication under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, fairness required allowing cross-examination of mahazar witnesses where the Department relied on the mahazar to prove seizure from the business premises and to sustain a charge of non-accountal. The place of recovery was a material fact, as the respondent contended that the gold ornaments were seized from his residence rather than his business premises. Because the mahazar was a contemporaneous document central to establishing the charge, the respondent had to be given an opportunity to test its contents through cross-examination of the witnesses. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh adjudication after granting that opportunity.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in adjudication under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, the respondent was entitled to cross-examine the mahazar witnesses where the Department relied on the mahazar to prove seizure from the business premises and to sustain the charge of non-accountal.

Analysis: The charge against the respondent, a pawn broker, was under Section 6(2) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 for non-accountal of the gold ornaments seized. The place of recovery was material because the respondent asserted that the seizure was from his residence and not from his business premises. The mahazar was therefore a contemporaneous document relied upon by the Department to establish a vital ingredient of the charge. In such a situation, fairness required that the respondent be permitted to test that document by cross-examining the mahazar witnesses. The reliance placed on the contrary view was held to be inapplicable on the facts, since the document in question directly supported the allegation and was central to the adjudication.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to an opportunity to cross-examine the mahazar witnesses, and the order remanding the matter for fresh adjudication after such opportunity was justified.

---