Cross-Examination Unnecessary: Petition Dismissed as Statements Were Favorable, Aligning with SC Precedent.

The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the denial of a cross-examination request. The court held that since the respondent did not intend to rely on the officers' statements, which were favorable to the petitioner, cross-examination was unnecessary. Citing SC precedent, the court emphasized that cross-examination is required only when statements are adverse. The respondent's decision was deemed lawful, and the petition was dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues involved:
The writ petition challenges a communication refusing the petitioner's request for cross-examination of officers involved in clearing goods.

Analysis of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Cross-examination request rejection
The petitioner sought to cross-examine officers involved in clearing goods, but the respondent refused, stating they would not rely on the officers' statements and intended to start proceedings anew. The petitioner argued that since the officers' statements favored them, there was no need for cross-examination. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the petitioner contended they were entitled to cross-examination.

Court's Decision:
The court noted that the respondent's decision not to rely on the officers' statements meant there was no need for cross-examination. As the officers' statements were favorable to the petitioner, cross-examination was deemed unnecessary. Referring to the Supreme Court precedent, the court emphasized that cross-examination is essential only when the statements are against the party. Since the respondent was not relying on the officers' statements, the rejection of the cross-examination request was upheld. The court found no illegality in the respondent's communication and dismissed the writ petition without costs.

---