Retracted confessional statements may still prove foreign exchange contraventions when corroborated by independent evidence.

A retracted confessional statement can be relied on for foreign exchange contraventions when it is voluntary and supported by independent corroboration. Here, recovered foreign exchange and Indian currency, admissions during investigation, and the co-noticee's statement corroborated the confession, while a bare retraction without proof of coercion or threat was insufficient to displace its evidentiary value. The false statement charge was also sustained because the appellant's explanation for the currency source was disproved by the alleged lender's denial and surrounding circumstances. In light of the proved contraventions and corroborated evidence, the penalties were upheld as proportionate and no appellate interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the contravention of Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was proved on the basis of the appellants' retracted confessional statements and the surrounding evidence. (ii) Whether the charge of giving a false statement under Section 40(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was established. (iii) Whether the penalties imposed called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the contravention of Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was proved on the basis of the appellants' retracted confessional statements and the surrounding evidence.

Analysis: The recovered foreign exchange and Indian currency, the admissions recorded during investigation, and the supporting statement of the co-noticee furnished corroboration to the appellant's confession. A bare retraction, unsupported by material showing coercion or threat, was insufficient to displace the evidentiary value of the statement. The burden to establish inducement or coercion lay on the maker of the statement, and that burden was not discharged.

Conclusion: The contravention under Section 8(1) was proved against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the charge of giving a false statement under Section 40(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was established.

Analysis: The appellant's explanation regarding the source of the foreign currency was disproved by the statement of the person said to have advanced the currency, who denied having done so. The inconsistent explanation and the surrounding circumstances supported the finding that the statement given before the enforcement officers was false.

Conclusion: The charge under Section 40(3) was established.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalties imposed called for interference.

Analysis: In view of the proved contraventions and the corroborated evidence, the adjudicating authority's assessment of the penalty was regarded as proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. No error warranting appellate interference was shown.

Conclusion: The penalties were upheld and no interference was made.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication was sustained in full, and the appellants obtained no relief in appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted confessional statement may be acted upon when it is shown to be voluntary and is corroborated by independent evidence; a bare allegation of coercion, without proof, is insufficient to discard it.

---