Natural justice and evidentiary support in penalty proceedings upheld where statements were disclosed and no cross-examination request was made.

Where relied-upon statements were disclosed to the delinquent during proceedings and no specific request was made to produce the witnesses for cross-examination, a challenge based on breach of natural justice failed; the court noted that personal hearings were also afforded and the material was shown to the petitioner. The revisional finding that the petitioner had facilitated smuggling was upheld because it was supported by the record, including recovery of a duty chart from a Maruti car and the statements recorded in the proceedings. The reduced penalty was sustained, and the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order of penalty was vitiated for denial of cross-examination and breach of principles of natural justice; (ii) whether the revisional finding that the petitioner had facilitated smuggling was unsupported by the materials on record.

Issue (i): Whether the order of penalty was vitiated for denial of cross-examination and breach of principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The statements relied upon were brought to the petitioner's notice during the proceedings, but no specific request for production of the witnesses for cross-examination had been made. The petitioner was also afforded personal hearings and shown the relevant material. In these circumstances, the complaint of violation of natural justice was not made out.

Conclusion: The challenge based on denial of cross-examination and breach of natural justice was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional finding that the petitioner had facilitated smuggling was unsupported by the materials on record.

Analysis: The revisional authority relied on the record, including the recovery of the duty chart from the Maruti car and the statements noticed in the proceedings, as a vital link connecting the petitioner with the occurrence. The factual conclusions were found to be free from infirmity and did not warrant interference.

Conclusion: The finding of facilitation and the reduced penalty were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed and the impugned revisional order was sustained, leaving the penalty against the petitioner in force.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relied-upon statements are disclosed to the delinquent and no specific request for cross-examination is made, and the finding is supported by material evidence, a writ court will not interfere on grounds of natural justice or evidentiary insufficiency.

---