At the outset, right to cross examination safeguards the aggrieved party from being prejudiced. It is only when a deposition goes through the fire of cross-examination that a court or statutory authority may be able to determine and assess its probative value. Using a deposition, that is not so tested, may therefore amount to using evidence, which the party concerned has had no opportunity to question. Such refusal may, in turn, amount to violation of the rule of a fair hearing and opportunity implicit in any adjudicatory process, affecting the right of the citizen.

While cross-examination would be required in certain cases, it need not be given as a matter of right in all cases. The provision of the opportunity to cross-examine depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and is warranted only when the party seeking such an opportunity is able to demonstrate that prejudice would be caused in the absence thereof.

Where the statements in question were only corroborative of undisputed documentary evidence already on record, it did not warrant cross-examination. By praying for cross-examination, the parties cannot convert show-cause notice proceedings into minitrials.

Persons seeking cross-examination ought to give specific reasons why cross-examination is needed in a particular situation and that too of specific witnesses. A blanket request to cross-examine all persons whose statements have been recorded by the Department (many of whom are typically employees, sellers, purchasers, or other persons connected to the entity under investigation) cannot be sustained.

If a prayer for cross-examination is made, the Authority has to consider the same fairly and if the need is so felt in respect of a particular person, the same ought to be permitted. If not, the Authority can record the reasons and proceed in the case.