Cross-examination in FEMA adjudication is not an absolute right; refusal stands absent specific need and demonstrated prejudice.

In summary adjudicatory proceedings under FEMA, cross-examination is not an absolute right and may be refused where the request is blanket, unsupported by specific reasons, directed at unidentified witnesses, or made without showing prejudice. The refusal was upheld because the case rested mainly on documentary material and the request appeared premature. The refusal to supply additional documents was also upheld because the relevant documents had already been furnished with the show cause notice, the further material sought was not shown to be relevant or necessary for rebuttal, and no prejudice was demonstrated. The impugned order was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant was entitled, as of right, to cross-examine witnesses in the adjudication proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999; (ii) whether the refusal to supply additional documents sought by the appellant vitiated the impugned order.

Issue (i): whether the appellant was entitled, as of right, to cross-examine witnesses in the adjudication proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.

Analysis: Cross-examination in summary adjudication is not an unfettered right. It may be permitted where the request is supported by specific reasons, pertains to identified witnesses, and the denial is shown to cause prejudice. The application here sought cross-examination in a blanket manner, without naming several witnesses or explaining why their examination was necessary. The case was found to rest largely on documentary material, and the request was made before filing a detailed reply, giving it the character of a premature and delaying step rather than a justified procedural necessity.

Conclusion: The refusal to permit cross-examination was justified and does not warrant interference.

Issue (ii): whether the refusal to supply additional documents sought by the appellant vitiated the impugned order.

Analysis: The relied upon documents had already been supplied with the show cause notice. The further documents sought were found to be irrelevant to the allegations or unnecessary for rebuttal of the case, and the appellant could not demonstrate their materiality. Where the demand is not connected to the controversy and no prejudice is shown, refusal to supply such documents does not amount to illegality.

Conclusion: The refusal to supply the additional documents was proper and does not vitiate the order.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order rejecting the request for cross-examination and further documents fails, and the impugned order is sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In summary adjudicatory proceedings, cross-examination is not a matter of right and may be declined unless the party seeking it shows a specific need and resulting prejudice from refusal.

---