Admissibility of FERA statements upheld where retraction and coercion claims failed to dislodge voluntary evidence.

A statement recorded from the appellant under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was treated as admissible and voluntary because sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act did not apply to an enforcement officer, who was not a police officer, and the appellant was not yet an accused when the statement was made. A prompt retraction did not, by itself, displace its evidentiary value, and the allegation of coercion was found unsubstantiated. Independent support from the appellant's father's statement reinforced the finding of contravention under section 5(1)(aa), and the penalty was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the statement recorded from the appellant under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act could be treated as admissible and voluntary material to sustain the finding of contravention under section 5(1)(aa), and whether the resulting penalty was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The statement recorded under section 19F was not governed by sections 24 and 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, because the enforcement officer was not a police officer and the appellant was not an accused person when the statement was made. The retraction made shortly thereafter did not by itself destroy the evidentiary value of the statement. The Court further held that the allegation of coercion was not substantiated by any material and that the statement was voluntary. The statement of the appellant's father provided independent support, and the Appellate Board had acted with due caution in relying on the two statements together. The contention that the father's statement had not been put to the appellant was not accepted, as it had not been raised before the Appellate Board or in the memorandum of appeal.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention and the penalty imposed on the appellant were upheld and interference was declined.

---