Page 216 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

654 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

(6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention
regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the
name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the
arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose
custody the arrestee is.
(7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at
the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present
on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The “Inspection
Memo” must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer
effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.
(8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a
trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a
doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director,
Health Services of the State or Union Territory concerned. Director,
Health Services should prepare such a panel for all tehsils and dis-
tricts as well.
(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, re-
ferred to above, should be sent to the Magistrate for his record.
(10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during in-
terrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.
(11) A police control room should be provided at all district and
State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the
place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the of-
ficer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at
the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous no-
tice board.”
24. Learned Senior Counsel submits that none of the above safeguards
were followed by the officers of the 2nd respondent during investigation and
while recording statements.
25. Learned Senior Counsel hereafter drew attention to the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE, (2016) 15 SCC
785 = 2015 (324) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) = 2017 (50) S.T.R. 93 (S.C.) where the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that not allowing an assessee to cross-examine the witnesses
by the adjudicating authority though the statements of such witnesses were
made the basis of the impugned order was a serious flaw which makes the order
nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice be-
cause of which the assessee was adversely affected. He drew attention to the fol-
lowing passages from the said decision :-
“It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was
based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even
when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to
cross-examine, the adjudicating authority did not grant this opportunity to
the assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order
passed by the adjudicating authority he has specifically mentioned that
such an opportunity was sought by the assessee. However, no such oppor-
tunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the ad-
judicating authority. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, we find that rejec-
tion of this plea is totally untenable. The Tribunal has simply stated that
cross-examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  216