parties to cross-examine the person giving the evidence, if considered necessary or expedient. Hence, even when the evidence is led by oral submissions, the Commission or the DG retains the discretion to consider the request for grant of opportunity to the other party or parties to crossexamine the person giving the evidence if the same is considered necessary or expedient. Thus, the only issue which needs to be examined is when it would be necessary and expedient to grant an opportunity to the other party or parties to cross-examine the person giving evidence by way of oral submissions. Whether an opportunity of cross-examination is to be given or not depends upon the circumstances of each case. In this regard, the Commission notes that the words ‘ if considered necessary or expedient’ are of great import. Whenever the DG, or for that matter the Commission, finds that some incriminating evidence (statement) has come up during investigation before the DG or during inquiry before the Commission against any party, the same has to be put to the party against whom that evidence has come, and if such party refutes the evidence and gives some explanation, the DG or the Commission (as the case may be) is under an obligation to examine the explanation and accordingly decide whether the witness concerned may be called for cross-examination or not. In this connection, it may be observed that when the information supplied by a party is based on personal knowledge, the other party may be granted the right to cross-examine the party giving evidence. However, when the information provided by a party is documentary or based on documents, the same can be rebutted by filing Affidavits and cross-examination of such party is not required in all cases.
