TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the witnesses. In case the other evidence which has been sought are not produced, the petitioner can always derive the benefits of provisions of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. Provisions of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act enables the authority or the court to presume existence of certain facts. The petitioner can always take the benefit of such provisions at the relevant point of time by making submissions in an appropriate forum and competent authority but not through the process of this Court, as it appears to be a adoption of a dilatory tactics. Petition dismissed. - WP (C). No. 8368 OF 2020 (U) - - - Dated:- 17-3-2020 - THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of the petitioner submits that all the facts have been categorically stated in the reply dated 25th of April 2019, Ext.P2. 3rd respondent vide notice dated 15th May 2019, send a communication, supplying the petitioner with the details of the check post transactions transported in the name of the petitioner, Ext.P3. However, the 3rd respondent conveniently refrained from its responsibility to investigate on the matter, by stating that the consignors of the disputed transactions are outside the State of Kerala. 4. On noticing the stand of the 3rd respondent, a request letter was submitted to the Circle Inspector of Police (4th respondent) dated 4th June 2019, Ext.P4. In the meantime, the petitioner filed a reply, Ext.P5 dated 7t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... personal hearing on 9th August 2019, Ext.P9. The 3rd respondent issued notice dated 15th November 2019, intimating the petitioner that the notice issued to Mr. Muhammed Hussain and Mr. Biju P.J was returned without receipt. The notice issued to Sanjay Traders, Bodinayakanur was not responded and granted the personal hearing on 2nd December 2019 vide communication, ibid, Ext.P11. 5. 3rd respondent also issued notices to the drivers/owners of the vehicles involved in the alleged interstate transactions. However, the 3rd respondent postponed the hearing on 2nd December 2019 to 30th December 2019 due to an official conference of the Finance Minister and notices dated 13th December 2019 to various persons issued by the 3rd respondent persons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the gravity of the issues involved. Infact, the alleged transaction was the result of foul play involving the 3rd person. It is in these circumstances, extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been sought against the order under Ext.P16, which is also appealable. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submission. Pith and substance of the facts revealed herein above, which are not being mentioned again in order to avoid repetition would reveal that the petitioner had been afforded an opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses. In case the other evidence which has been sought are not pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
