Natural justice requires cross-examination and a further hearing when foundational report evidence and later material are relied on.

Where confiscation and penalties rested substantially on an antiquities report, refusal to allow cross-examination of the report's author violated natural justice because it denied a meaningful chance to challenge the foundation of the proceedings. Where the adjudicating authority also relied on later cross-examination material without issuing a further hearing notice, a fresh opportunity of hearing was required, especially after change of address was intimated. The impugned adjudication could not stand and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh after granting cross-examination and hearing opportunities.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether denial of cross-examination of the author of the antiquities report vitiated the adjudication; (ii) Whether failure to afford a subsequent personal hearing after reliance on later cross-examination evidence violated natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether denial of cross-examination of the author of the antiquities report vitiated the adjudication.

Analysis: The confiscation and penalties were founded substantially on the report identifying three objects as antiquities. As that report formed the basis of the case, the request to cross-examine its author could not be refused merely for want of reasons. Denial of that opportunity deprived the appellants of an effective chance to challenge the foundation of the proceedings.

Conclusion: Yes. Refusal to allow cross-examination of the report's author was contrary to the principles of natural justice.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to afford a subsequent personal hearing after reliance on later cross-examination evidence violated natural justice.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority relied on later cross-examination material, including evidence used against the third appellant, but no notice of hearing after that development was shown to have been issued. Once fresh material was relied upon, a further opportunity of hearing was required, particularly where the record showed change of address had been intimated.

Conclusion: Yes. Non-issuance of a subsequent hearing notice caused a gross violation of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication could not stand and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh after granting cross-examination and hearing opportunities to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: When an adjudication rests on a report or evidence that is foundational to the case, denial of cross-examination of the author and refusal of a meaningful subsequent hearing before reliance on additional material violate natural justice and justify remand for fresh adjudication.

---