Natural justice and retracted statement principles uphold contravention while penalty is moderated for uncertain quantum

Natural justice challenge failed where notice of hearing was served, an adjournment had already been granted, and the appellant did not avail the further opportunity to appear or cross-examine; repeated adjournments were not a right. A retracted statement could still support adjudication if voluntary and not shown to be vitiated, and a criminal acquittal based on Evidence Act standards did not bind the adjudicatory forum. Contravention under section 9(1)(b) and section 9(1)(d) was upheld, but the penalty was moderated because the amount involved was not independently established with sufficient certainty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the adjudication proceedings were vitiated for want of reasonable opportunity, including the refusal of further adjournment and the denial of cross-examination; (ii) whether the appellant could be found liable on the basis of the retracted statement despite acquittal in the criminal case; and (iii) whether the penalty required reduction on the available material.

Issue (i): Whether the adjudication proceedings were vitiated for want of reasonable opportunity, including the refusal of further adjournment and the denial of cross-examination.

Analysis: The notice of hearing had been served, an adjournment had already been granted, and the subsequent opportunity to appear could not be treated as unreasonably short. The rules governing adjudication did not confer a right to repeated adjournments. The failure to avail the opportunity for hearing and cross-examination lay with the appellant, and the adjudicating authority could not be faulted for proceeding ex parte.

Conclusion: The challenge based on violation of natural justice failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant could be found liable on the basis of the retracted statement despite acquittal in the criminal case.

Analysis: A retracted confession could still be acted upon if found voluntary and true, and the maker had to show circumstances vitiating it. The criminal acquittal was based on strict rules of evidence under the Evidence Act, which did not govern the adjudication. The criminal finding was therefore not binding on the Tribunal, and the retracted statement was not shown to be tainted so as to displace the finding of contravention.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention under section 9(1)(b) and section 9(1)(d) was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty required reduction on the available material.

Analysis: The amount involved was not independently established with certainty apart from the confession. In the absence of fuller corroboration, the Tribunal considered it to adopt a rough and fair standard while quantifying the penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced to Rs. 2,50,000 on each count, making the total Rs. 5,00,000.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reduction of penalty, while the finding of contravention was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted statement may be relied upon in adjudication if its voluntariness is not dislodged, a criminal acquittal based on strict evidentiary rules does not bind the adjudicatory forum, and penalty may be moderated where the quantum is not independently established with adequate certainty.

---