Natural justice requires cross-examination of a material expert report before punitive excise action can stand.

Where punitive excise action rests substantially on a Chemical Examiner's report, the affected party must be given a reasonable opportunity to test that report by examining the expert and challenging the method of sampling, calculation, and analysis. Denial of that opportunity breaches natural justice and vitiates the resulting confiscation and penalty orders. The availability of an alternative remedy did not bar relief on the facts stated. The impugned orders were therefore held unsustainable and were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refusal to allow the petitioner to examine the Chemical Examiner, whose report formed the basis of the charge of substitution, amounted to a violation of natural justice warranting quashing of the confiscation and penalty orders.

Analysis: The charge against the petitioner rested substantially on the Chemical Examiner's report. The petitioner was entitled to test the basis of that report, including the method of calculation, the treatment of the sample, and the circumstances in which the sample had been kept and analysed. Denial of an opportunity to examine the Chemical Examiner deprived the petitioner of a fair hearing and constituted a breach of natural justice. The objection based on the existence of an alternative remedy was not accepted as a bar to relief in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The refusal to allow examination of the Chemical Examiner was illegal and the impugned orders could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the confiscation, penalty, and revisional orders were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a material adverse report forms the basis of punitive excise action, denial of a reasonable opportunity to test that report by cross-examination violates natural justice and vitiates the resulting orders.

---