HARI SHANKAR GURJAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common question of law and facts are involved in both these petitions and as the orders passed with regard to taking on record and permitting to adduce additional evidence under Order 41 rule 27 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a proceedings being held before the appellate Tribunal for Prevention of the Money Laundering Act, 2002, both these petitions have been filed, therefore, we propose to dispose of these petitions by this common order. Except for the fact that the dates of order passed rejecting the applications under 41 rule 27 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure are different, all other relevant facts are identical. In Writ PetitionNo.l 3196/2013, the impugned order Annexure P -4 is dated 3.7.2013 and in Writ Petition No. 17882/2014, the impugned order Annexure P -4 is dated 24.1.2014.

(2.) BOTH the petitioners were proceeded against the orders passed by the adjudicating authority confirming the provisional attachment order under Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Aggrieved by the order passed by the adjudicating authority, appeal under the Prevention of Money laundering Act, 2002 was filed before the appellate Tribunal. In the matter pending before the Appellate Tribunal, applications were filed in both the appeals under Order 41 rule 27 Read with section 151 of CPC and it was indicated in these applications that all the documents which were relevant for adjudication of the dispute in question were seized by the Lokayukt Organization and were part of the proceedings held before the Court of Special Judge, Khandwa have not been produced by the petitioners as they were not available with them during the adjudication proceedings that took place before the adjudicating authority, it was stated that the petitioners have now received these documents, therefore, they be permitted to adduce additional evidence before the appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected both the applications on the ground that the petitioners have not given any particulars or relevant facts regarding due diligence being shown with regard to obtaining these documents and producing them when the matter was pending before the adjudicating authority. Indicating that no specific details with regard to the steps taken by the petitioners to produce these evidence before the adjudicating authority have been filed. both applications have been rejected.

(3.) SHRI Anil Khare, learned senior counsel for the petitioners emphasized before us that these documents were part of the proceedings before the Court of Special Judge, Khandwa and the petitioners submitted their reply before the adjudicating authority on the basis of their memory and personal knowledge, thereafter they tried to obtain these documents from the Special Court to file them before the adjudicating authority, however as they did not receive the documents, they could not do so, now as they have received the documents, it be permitted to be produced before the appellate Tribunal.