Statutory burden in foreign exchange cases upheld, with conviction sustained and default imprisonment reduced.

Unlawful possession of foreign exchange was proved where U.S. dollars were found in the accused's possession at the airport without valid authority. The statutory burden then shifted to the accused to explain lawful possession, but the claim that he was only a carrier was not satisfactorily established, and the retracted statement did not displace the prosecution evidence. The conviction under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was upheld. The default imprisonment for non-payment of fine was, however, moderated from one year to six months because the court considered the circumstances and the substantial incarceration already undergone, while maintaining the fine.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was liable for contravention of foreign exchange law on the facts proved, and (ii) whether the default sentence imposed for non-payment of fine required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was liable for contravention of foreign exchange law on the facts proved

Analysis: The petitioner was found in possession of U.S. dollars at the airport, and the prosecution evidence established possession without valid authority. Under the statutory burden provision, once possession of foreign exchange beyond the prescribed limit was shown, the burden lay on the accused to prove lawful possession. The claim that he was only a carrier was not satisfactorily established. The retraction of the statement after a week did not displace the prosecution case supported by the witnesses and the seizure mahazar.

Conclusion: The conviction under section 8(1) read with section 56(1)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the default sentence imposed for non-payment of fine required reduction

Analysis: The fine was imposed having regard to the value of the foreign exchange involved, and the sentence was not treated as excessive in the circumstances. However, the default sentence for non-payment of fine was considered capable of moderation, particularly since the petitioner had already undergone substantial incarceration.

Conclusion: The default sentence was reduced from one year to six months.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the limited extent of reducing the default imprisonment for non-payment of fine, while the substantive conviction and the fine were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Once unlawful possession of foreign exchange is proved, the statutory burden shifts to the accused to explain lawful possession, and the default sentence for fine may be moderated even where the conviction and fine are sustained.

---