Personal penalties for smuggling cannot rest on uncorroborated co-accused statements; independent evidence is required.

Personal penalties for alleged involvement in smuggling cannot be sustained where the case rests only on statements of co-accused and no independent corroborative evidence is produced. The material relied on created suspicion, but suspicion alone was insufficient to establish the appellants' participation in a smuggling syndicate. In the absence of corroboration, the allegations remained unproven and the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---

---

Issues: Whether personal penalties for alleged involvement in smuggling could be sustained solely on the basis of statements of co-accused without independent corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The material relied upon only created suspicion regarding the appellants' involvement. The penalties were founded on general statements attributing membership of a smuggling syndicate to the appellants, but no independent evidence was produced to corroborate those allegations.

Conclusion: Personal penalties could not be sustained on the basis of uncorroborated co-accused statements alone, and the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---