Doctrine of necessity supports use of prior statements in exceptional cases; statutory safeguards and reasoned satisfaction uphold constitutionality.

Section 9-D(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act permits reliance on prior statements in limited exceptional circumstances, including death, unavailability, incapacity, concealment by the adverse party, or undue delay or expense in producing the maker. The provision was treated as reflecting the doctrine of necessity and as pari materia with the evidentiary principle in Section 32 of the Evidence Act. The Court noted that the adjudicating authority must form an objective view on the statutory ground, base the decision on the record, and record reasons. It upheld the provision as constitutional and rejected the challenge that it was arbitrary or ultra vires Article 14.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 9-D(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 was unconstitutional or ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and whether its invocation in adjudication proceedings required prior hearing, recorded reasons, and objective satisfaction on the statutory grounds.

Analysis: Section 9-D permits reliance on statements recorded by a gazetted Central Excise Officer in specified exceptional circumstances where the maker is dead, cannot be found, is incapable of giving evidence, is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or cannot be produced without unreasonable delay or expense. The provision was held to be pari materia with the rule reflected in Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and to embody the doctrine of necessity. The safeguards were treated as built into the provision itself, because the adjudicating authority must base the decision on material on record, form an objective opinion on the existence of the statutory ground, and record reasons. The Court held that the power is not uncanalised or arbitrary merely because the statute does not separately spell out every procedural safeguard, and that any improper invocation in a particular case can be challenged in appeal.

Conclusion: Section 9-D(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 was upheld as constitutional, and the challenge to its vires failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed because the statutory provision governing reliance on prior statements in exceptional circumstances was sustained, with the Court recognizing that its exercise must remain reasoned, objective, and subject to appellate review.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory provision allowing reliance on prior statements without cross-examination in exceptional, objectively ascertainable circumstances is not unconstitutional or arbitrary if the authority must satisfy itself on the record, record reasons, and the affected party can challenge the invocation in appeal.

---