Personal penalty for contraband involvement set aside where evidence was limited to co-accused statements and weak circumstantial links.

A personal penalty for alleged involvement with contraband recovered from a co-accused's premises cannot stand on suspicion alone. Co-accused statements and a diary entry showing a name and address were found insufficient where there was no documentary proof that the premises belonged to or were leased to the appellant, and no reliable evidence establishing possession or control. The evidence did not prove the appellant's connection with the seized goods, so the penalty was held unsustainable and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the personal penalty imposed on the appellant for alleged concern with contraband goods recovered from premises occupied by a co-accused was sustainable on the evidence.

Analysis: The only material connecting the appellant with the seized goods consisted of statements of co-accused persons and an entry in the appellant's diary showing the name and address of one of them. The recovery was from the residential premises of a co-accused, and there was no documentary proof, such as a lease or rent deed, to show that the premises belonged to or had been leased to the appellant. The evidence was found insufficient to establish that the appellant had possession of the premises or was concerned with the contraband goods, and the diary entry was held not to establish a firm conclusion of involvement.

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

Ratio Decidendi: A personal penalty cannot be sustained merely on suspicion, co-accused statements, or weak circumstantial links; there must be reliable evidence establishing the appellant's connection with the contraband.

---