Retracted confession requires independent corroboration before framing charge under foreign exchange law; unproven voluntariness is insufficient.

A retracted confession recorded under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act could not, by itself, sustain framing of charge where the prosecution failed to prove voluntariness or rebut the allegation of coercion. The Delhi HC held that substantial independent corroboration is required before such a statement can be relied on for criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings. In the absence of cogent corroborative material, the order framing charge was unsustainable and the revision petitions were allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order framing charge under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act could be sustained when the prosecution case rested on a retracted confessional statement without independent corroboration.

Analysis: The order framing charge was based substantially on a statement recorded under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, but the statement had been retracted and the respondent did not adduce material to show that it was voluntary or to rebut the plea of coercion. In the absence of cogent independent corroboration, a retracted confession could not safely be treated as the sole basis for framing charge. The legal position applied was that a retracted confession requires substantial corroboration and that the burden to establish voluntariness lies on the prosecution.

Conclusion: The charge could not be sustained and the revision petitions were allowed in favour of the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted confession cannot, by itself, sustain criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings unless the prosecution proves its voluntariness and produces substantial independent corroboration.

---