behalf of the appellant. The counsel for the appellant Mr. Dhanapalan started examination of the Chief Enforcement Officer and at the request of the advocate the examination was adjourned to 17th & 18th January, 2008. At para 62 of the impugned order, it states “on the next date of hearing on 17.01.2008 and 18.01.2008 Shri Janakiraman I.O. (from ED) of the case was present for cross-examination. However, neither Shri K.V. Dhanapalan, Advocate of Shri V. Bhaskaran……….was present to conduct cross-examination of officer. The proceedings were therefore adjourned to 29.01.2008 and if not concluded to be continued on 30th & 31st January, 2008. On 31.01.2008, witnesses Shri P.V. Balasubramani and S. Janakiraman officers were present. As recorded at para 63 & 64 of the impugned order it states “during the examination, the advocate insisted on production of search warrant and mahzar for search of the residence of Shri V. Bhaskaran on 21.09.1995. The hearing was then adjourned to 06th , 07th & 08th February, 2008…….. on the said dates of hearing on 06th , 07th & 08th February, 2008 Shri S. Janakiraman, witness was present but neither Shri Kaandasamy nor Shri K.V. Dhanapalan, Advocate (on behalf of the appellant) representing the notices were present to conduct the examination of witness.” None of the above facts have been controverted by the appellant. In such a situation, it is apparent that innumerable opportunities have been given to the appellant for appearing/arguing his case and examining the witness but he failed to avail the same. He either did not appear or on the few occasions where he did appear before the adjudicating authority he took adjournment on some plea or the other. I agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that justice is qua both the parties and I do not find any violation by the adjudicating authority in this regard.
