2018 (9) TMI 1679 - HC - Customs

Court quashes order for lack of cross-examination, emphasizing procedural fairness and right to fair trial

LAKSHMAN LAL DAS Versus THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND ORS.

The High Court, in WP No.448 of 2018, quashed the impugned order for breaching the principles of natural justice by denying the petitioner an opportunity ... Principles of natural justice - case of petitioner is that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witness nor was the request for cross-examination dealt with by the impugned order - respondents submits that the petitioner did not indicate the reason as to why the cross-examination was required. Held that:- In an adjudication proceeding which is adversarial in nature, a party adducing evidence through a natural person is required to allow cross-examination of such natural person, to the other side - In the present case apparently the prosecution was relying upon evidence adduced by natural persons in the proceeding. The prosecution, therefore, ought to have allowed such persons to be cross-examined. When, a contesting party in adversarial litigation adduced evidence through a natural person, it results in a corresponding right to the opposite party in such adversarial proceeding to crossexamine such natural person. In absence of such cross-examination being allowed or facilitated the evidence given by such natural person has no evidentiary value and cannot relied upon - The adjudicating authority not having considered the request for grant of crossexamination of the prosecution witness, the impugned order stands vitiated by breach of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order is quashed. Issues: Challenge to order in original on grounds of breach of principles of natural justice and denial of opportunity for cross-examination.Analysis:1. Breach of Principles of Natural Justice: The petitioner challenged the order in original dated May 31, 2018, alleging a breach of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that the impugned order failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of the prosecution witness, which was a violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment in a similar case where the order was quashed due to the absence of such an opportunity. The Court emphasized that in an adversarial proceeding, the party presenting evidence through a natural person must allow for cross-examination by the opposing party. The failure to facilitate cross-examination renders the evidence provided by the natural person devoid of evidentiary value. As the impugned order did not address the request for cross-examination, it was deemed to be in violation of the principles of natural justice, leading to its quashing.2. Cross-Examination Request: The petitioner had requested the adjudicating authority for an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witness through written notes of defense. However, the impugned order did not address this request and did not allow for the cross-examination to take place. The Court highlighted that in adversarial litigation, when evidence is presented through a natural person, the opposing party has a right to cross-examine that person. The failure to grant this opportunity undermines the fairness and integrity of the adjudication process. The Court emphasized that the adjudicating authority must consider and facilitate such requests for cross-examination to ensure a fair and just determination of the case. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, allowing the adjudicating authority to proceed afresh from a previous stage or as deemed appropriate, with a directive to consider the petitioner's request for cross-examination in accordance with the law.3. Conclusion: In conclusion, the High Court, in WP No.448 of 2018, disposed of the matter by quashing the impugned order due to the failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding procedural fairness and ensuring that all parties are given a fair chance to present their case in adversarial proceedings.