Calcutta High Court
Lakshman Lal Das vs The Chief Commissioner Of Customs & Ors on 17 September, 2018
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
OD-8
W.P. 448 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Original Side
LAKSHMAN LAL DAS
Versus
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Date : 17th September, 2018.
Appearance:
Mr. Arijit Chakraborti, Adv.
Mr. Prasanta Bishal, Adv.
Mr. Nilotpal Chowdhury, Adv.
..for petitioner.
Mr. Kaushik Dey, Adv.
..for Respondent no.3
Mr. K.K. Maiti, Adv.
Ms. Sanjukta Gupta, Adv.
..for Customs & central Excise.
The Court:-An order in original dated May 31, 1018 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, impugned order stands vitiated by breach of the principles of natural justice. He relies upon judgement and order dated August 28, 2018 passed in WP No.409 of 2018 ( M/s. Modern Agency & Anr. Vs. The Chief Commissioner of Customs & Ors. ) and submits that, impugned show cause notice and the impugned order were subject matter of such writ petition by different noticee. Such writ petition was disposed of by quashing the order in original so far as such noticee is concerned. He draws attention of the Court to the written submission filed on behalf of the petitioner and submits that, a request was made for cross-examination of the witness of 2 the prosecution. He refers to order in original at paragraph 25 thereof, and submits that, although the written notes of defence was taken on record, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witness nor was the request for cross-examination dealt with by the impugned order.
Learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submits, the petitioner did not indicate the reason as to why the cross-examination was required. Moreover, the petitioner was acting jointly with some other persons.
In an adjudication proceeding which is adversarial in nature, a party adducing evidence through a natural person is required to allow cross-examination of such natural person, to the other side. In the present case apparently the prosecution was relying upon evidence adduced by natural persons in the proceeding. The prosecution, therefore, ought to have allowed such persons to be cross-examined. The petitioner made a request to the adjudicating authority for an opportunity to cross-examine. Such request was made by the written notes of defence. The adjudicating authority took such written request on record. However, it did not allow the petitioner to cross-examine the prosecution witness. It did not deal with the request for cross- examination, in the impugned order. It is not necessary that, a party to a proceeding, specify the reason why it requires the cross-examination of the witness. When, a contesting party in adversarial litigation adduced evidence through a natural person, it results in a corresponding right to 3 the opposite party in such adversarial proceeding to cross- examine such natural person. In absence of such cross-examination being allowed or facilitated the evidence given by such natural person has no evidentiary value and cannot relied upon. The adjudicating authority not having considered the request for grant of cross- examination of the prosecution witness, the impugned order stands vitiated by breach of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order is quashed. This order will not prevent the adjudicating authority to proceed a fresh from the stage reached on April 25, 2018 or from such stage it deems appropriate. It is expected that, the adjudicating authority will keep the request of the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses noted in its written notes of defence, in accordance with law.
WP No.448 of 2018 is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) nm