Self-incrimination protection and corroboration rule limit FERA findings based only on diary entries and adverse inference.

A noticee in FERA proceedings could invoke Article 20(3) to refuse answers to incriminating questions, and such refusal did not justify an adverse inference where exposure to criminal liability still existed. Diary entries relied on by the Enforcement Directorate were only corroborative material; without independent evidence, they could not by themselves prove acquisition, transfer, or non-surrender of foreign exchange under Section 8(1). The Court held that a single unexplained entry could not be treated as substantive proof, and that the burden could not be shifted on that basis alone. The adjudication and appellate findings were therefore unsustainable, and the penalty was directed to be refunded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant could validly invoke Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India while refusing to answer questions under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and whether an adverse inference could be drawn from such refusal. (ii) Whether the diary entries relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate, without independent corroborative evidence, were sufficient to establish contravention of Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant could validly invoke Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India while refusing to answer questions under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and whether an adverse inference could be drawn from such refusal.

Analysis: The proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 had not matured into FERA criminal proceedings when the appellant was first examined, and the contemporaneous CBI FIR had already named him in relation to alleged FERA violations. The protection against self-incrimination could therefore be invoked in relation to questions that tended to incriminate him. Even after the filing of the CBI chargesheets, the appellant remained exposed to criminal proceedings under Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Refusal to answer incriminating questions in those circumstances could not be treated as contumacious non-cooperation, nor could it justify an adverse inference. The analogy of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was held inapposite.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to rely on Article 20(3), and no adverse inference could be drawn against him for declining to answer incriminating questions.

Issue (ii): Whether the diary entries relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate, without independent corroborative evidence, were sufficient to establish contravention of Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: The entries in the diaries, even assuming them to be books of account, were at best corroborative material. They did not by themselves establish that the appellant had otherwise acquired foreign exchange, transferred foreign exchange abroad, or failed to surrender foreign exchange to an authorised dealer. The Enforcement Directorate had not produced credible independent evidence, including any investigation from Dubai or elsewhere, to substantiate the allegations. A single unexplained entry, without more, could not be elevated into substantive proof of the alleged contravention. The findings of the adjudicating authority and the appellate tribunal were therefore based on an erroneous appreciation of the evidentiary value of the diaries.

Conclusion: The diary entries were insufficient to prove contravention of Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication and appellate orders were unsustainable, and the appeal succeeded with refund of the penalty as directed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: In FERA proceedings, a noticee may refuse to answer incriminating questions, and diary entries by themselves are only corroborative; without independent evidence they cannot establish contravention of foreign exchange prohibitions or sustain adverse findings based on a burden-shifting inference.

---