Court directs petitioner to Appellate Tribunal for cross-examination dispute resolution.

The Court held that the writ petition challenging the Adjudicating Authority's order denying cross-examination was not maintainable, directing the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal. Emphasizing the Tribunal's competence in handling such appeals to avoid parallel proceedings, the Court highlighted the importance of not routinely dismissing requests for cross-examination. The Appellate Tribunal was instructed to expedite the hearing and decide the matter within two weeks, with the Court's observations not binding the Tribunal's decision on the appeal's merits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Right to cross-examination under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Maintainability:

The primary issue addressed was whether the writ petition challenging the Adjudicating Authority's order denying cross-examination was maintainable. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was procedural and not appealable under Section 26 of the PMLA. The petitioner cited the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Appeal) Rules, 2005, which define an appealable "order" as one passed under Section 13(2) or Section 8 of the PMLA. The petitioner contended that the writ remedy could be availed in cases of violation of principles of natural justice, as supported by the Supreme Court's judgment in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks.

Conversely, the respondent argued that the order was appealable as it was part of the adjudication process under Section 8 of the PMLA. The respondent pointed to the powers of the Adjudicating Authority, which include considering show cause notices, replies, and relevant materials before passing a final order. The respondent also cited precedents where appeals against procedural orders, including those denying cross-examination, were entertained by the Appellate Tribunal.

The Court concluded that the writ petition was not maintainable, emphasizing that the Appellate Tribunal is equipped to handle such appeals. The Court noted that entertaining writ petitions for procedural orders could lead to parallel proceedings and inconsistent judgments. The petitioner was directed to approach the Appellate Tribunal, and the writ petition was transmitted to the Tribunal for expedited handling.

Right to Cross-Examination under PMLA:

The petitioner sought the right to cross-examine witnesses, arguing that it is an integral part of fair play in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. The petitioner cited the Supreme Court's judgment in K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India, which underscores the importance of cross-examination in ensuring fair play.

The respondent countered that the Adjudicating Authority is not strictly bound by the Code of Civil Procedure and can regulate its own procedures, as per Section 6(15) and Section 11 of the PMLA. The respondent also cited a Division Bench judgment in Arun Kumar Mishra v. Union of India, which held that the right to cross-examine could be addressed in an appeal against the final order of the Adjudicating Authority.

The Court acknowledged the importance of cross-examination as part of due process but emphasized that it need not be permitted in every case. The Court criticized the Adjudicating Authority's language in the impugned order, which dismissed the request for cross-examination as "noise being caused." The Court stressed that requests for cross-examination should be seriously considered and not dismissed routinely.

The Court directed the Appellate Tribunal to consider the petitioner's request for cross-examination, including the specific reason of a witness's retraction of statements made to the Income Tax Department. The Court also excluded the period during which the writ petition was pending from the 180-day adjudication timeline under the PMLA.

Conclusion:

The writ petition was disposed of, with the petitioner directed to approach the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal was instructed to expedite the hearing and decide the matter within two weeks of the first listing. The Court's observations were not to bind the Tribunal, which was to decide the appeal on its own merits.

---