Cross-examination in FERA adjudication is not automatic when no real prejudice is shown and documents already support the case.

In FERA adjudication proceedings, refusal to allow cross-examination of officers and other witnesses does not by itself amount to breach of natural justice. The right to cross-examine is not absolute and depends on the facts, the nature of the proceedings, and whether denial causes real prejudice. Where the case rests largely on documentary material, the affected party has received the relied-upon documents, and no specific necessity or material prejudice is shown, cross-examination may properly be refused. On the stated record, the requests were unsupported by any concrete demonstration of prejudice, and the objections did not justify oral testing. The interlocutory orders were therefore not liable to interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether refusal to permit cross-examination of the officers and other witnesses in the FERA adjudication proceedings vitiated the interlocutory orders on the ground of breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The right to cross-examine is not an inflexible rule and depends on the facts, the nature of the proceedings, and whether denial of that opportunity causes real prejudice. Cross-examination of investigating or departmental officers is not automatically required, particularly where the case rests substantially on documentary material and the affected party has been supplied the relied upon documents and given an opportunity to respond. A mere assertion of prejudice, without showing how the denial of cross-examination would materially alter the defence, is insufficient to invalidate the proceedings. On the record, the request for cross-examination was not supported by any specific demonstration of necessity or prejudice, and several of the objections sought to be tested were already corroborated by the appellants' own statements or were otherwise not shown to require oral testing.

Conclusion: The denial of cross-examination did not warrant interference with the impugned interlocutory orders.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were rightly rejected, and the adjudication could proceed without granting the requested cross-examination in the absence of demonstrated prejudice.

---