Personal penalty cannot rest on an uncorroborated and partially disbelieved statement in a goods seizure case.

Personal penalty could not be sustained where it rested solely on a driver's statement that was accepted only in part and was unsupported by any independent corroboration. The same statement had been found unreliable on the question of truck ownership, making the reliance on it against the appellant internally inconsistent. In the absence of evidence linking the appellant to the concealment or transportation of the seized goods, the penalty was not justified and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether personal penalty on the appellant could be sustained solely on the basis of the driver's statement, when that statement was disbelieved in part and no corroborative evidence connected the appellant with the seized goods.

Analysis: The penalty was founded only on the driver's statement that the appellant had negotiated freight charges for transportation of the goods. The finding was internally inconsistent because the same statement was rejected as unreliable on the question of the truck's ownership, yet was accepted against the appellant without any independent corroboration. In these circumstances, the statement was not sufficient by itself to establish the appellant's involvement in the concealment or transportation of the goods.

Conclusion: The penalty on the appellant was not justified and was set aside.

---