Evidentiary insufficiency defeats personal penalty, while seized foreign currency confiscation was maintained on accepted facts.

The contemporaneous statement recorded on the date of seizure, together with the absence of corroboration from the house search and the failure to record the rickshaw van driver's statement, left the evidentiary basis for personal penalty insufficient; the penalty was therefore set aside. The Indian currency recovered from the appellant was ordered to be returned because it was admittedly found in his possession, while the confiscation of the Bangladesh currency was maintained since the appellant disowned it and the factual basis for confiscation was accepted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the personal penalty imposed on the appellant was sustainable on the evidence on record. (ii) Whether the Indian currency recovered from the appellant and the Bangladesh currency were liable to be dealt with differently.

Issue (i): Whether the personal penalty imposed on the appellant was sustainable on the evidence on record.

Analysis: The appellant's contemporaneous statement, recorded on the date of seizure, supported his version that he was intercepted on the previous night, that two other persons fled away, and that the bag was thrown into a bush. That statement was not rebutted by the authorities. The house search also did not yield any contraband, and the rickshaw van driver's statement, which could have supported the Revenue's case, was not recorded. In these circumstances, the evidentiary basis for sustaining the penalty was found insufficient.

Conclusion: The personal penalty was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the Indian currency recovered from the appellant and the Bangladesh currency were liable to be dealt with differently.

Analysis: The Indian currency of Rs. 72/- was admittedly recovered from the appellant's possession, whereas the appellant disowned the Bangladesh currency. On the facts accepted in the order, the Indian currency was ordered to be returned, while the confiscation of the Bangladesh currency was maintained.

Conclusion: The Indian currency was directed to be released, and the confiscation of the Bangladesh currency was upheld against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded on the challenge to the personal penalty and obtained release of the Indian currency, but the confiscation of the Bangladesh currency remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the contemporaneous statement of the person proceeded against is unrebutted and the surrounding circumstances do not support the prosecution case, penalty cannot be sustained by conjecture alone; confiscation may nonetheless survive where the party disowns the seized foreign currency and the factual basis for its confiscation is accepted.

---