Cross-examination and retracted statements in adjudication: refusal was upheld and a corroborated admission remained admissible.

Cross-examination is not an automatic entitlement in adjudication; a party must show why it is necessary and demonstrate prejudice from its denial, and refusal does not breach natural justice where the material is otherwise supported. A retracted inculpatory statement may still be admissible if it is voluntary, corroborated by other evidence, and not shown to have been induced by coercion or other vitiating factors; a belated retraction alone does not render it unreliable. On that reasoning, the finding of contravention was sustained, the penalty order was upheld, and the deposited amount was directed to be adjusted towards the penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refusal of cross-examination of third parties vitiated the adjudication on the ground of breach of natural justice. (ii) Whether the appellant's retracted inculpatory statement could be relied upon as voluntary and admissible evidence.

Issue (i): Whether refusal of cross-examination of third parties vitiated the adjudication on the ground of breach of natural justice.

Analysis: Cross-examination is not an automatic right in every adjudication. A party seeking it must disclose why it is necessary and show prejudice or some basis for challenging the material relied upon. Where the appellant's own statement is supported by other material, and no specific reason is shown for requiring cross-examination, refusal of such request does not amount to breach of natural justice.

Conclusion: The refusal of cross-examination did not vitiate the proceedings and the objection fails.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's retracted inculpatory statement could be relied upon as voluntary and admissible evidence.

Analysis: A retracted statement may still be relied upon if it is voluntary and is supported by corroborative material. The belated retraction, made after a substantial delay, did not by itself discredit the earlier admission. In the absence of circumstances showing coercion or other vitiating factors, and in view of supporting material, the statement was treated as voluntary and admissible.

Conclusion: The retracted statement was rightly relied upon, and the finding of contravention was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was found to have no merit, the penalty order was sustained, and the deposited amount was directed to be adjusted towards the penalty.

---