Fair adjudication requires access to material CCTV evidence; withholding it can justify adverse inference and fresh consideration of seized goods.

Denial of access to CCTV footage that was material to the noticees' defence prejudiced fair adjudication under Articles 14 and 21, and the absence of that official evidence justified an adverse inference under Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The adjudicatory process could not proceed as though the withheld material did not exist. On consequential relief, gold was treated as regulated rather than intrinsically prohibited, and electronic goods were not prohibited items; the customs authority was required to decide whether the goods should be re-exported or cleared on duty payment. The petitioners were also permitted to seek duplicate passports, subject to ordinary formalities.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether denial of access to the CCTV footage, which was material to the petitioners' defence, violated the right to fair adjudication and warranted interference with the pending adjudication proceedings; (ii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to consequential relief in the form of permission to re-export or otherwise clear the seized goods and to obtain duplicate passports.

Issue (i): Whether denial of access to the CCTV footage, which was material to the petitioners' defence, violated the right to fair adjudication and warranted interference with the pending adjudication proceedings.

Analysis: Fair adjudication is an aspect of the constitutional guarantee of fairness and due process under Articles 14 and 21. Where a noticee's defence depends on official material, denial of access to that material can cause prejudice. The CCTV footage was directly relevant to the disputed point of interception and to whether the petitioners crossed the customs barrier or were stopped earlier. Since the footage was not preserved or produced, the petitioners were deprived of the best evidence available to support their defence. In such circumstances, an adverse inference was justified under Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Conclusion: The denial of CCTV footage amounted to prejudice to the petitioners' defence and the adjudication could not proceed as though the relevant material had never existed.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to consequential relief in the form of permission to re-export or otherwise clear the seized goods and to obtain duplicate passports.

Analysis: Gold was treated as regulated rather than intrinsically prohibited, while electronic goods were not prohibited items. The customs authority was therefore required to decide, on the facts and in the light of the applicable customs framework, whether the goods should be re-exported or cleared on payment of duty. As to passports, pendency at the FIR stage was not treated as a ground to deny renewal or issue of a duplicate passport. The relief was confined to enabling the petitioners to approach the passport authority and to have their request processed in accordance with law.

Conclusion: Limited consequential relief was granted by directing fresh consideration of the seized goods and by permitting issuance of duplicate passports, subject to ordinary formalities.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded in part on the ground of denial of fair adjudication, and the authorities were directed to proceed afresh only to determine the appropriate treatment of the seized goods while also facilitating duplicate passports.

Ratio Decidendi: Where material evidence in official custody is withheld and its non-production prejudices the defence, the adjudicatory process is vitiated to that extent and an adverse inference may be drawn against the withholding party.

---