Retracted confession with documentary corroboration can sustain foreign exchange contravention findings when coercion is unproved.

A retracted confession was treated as sufficient to sustain findings of contravention where the retraction was supported only by a bare allegation of coercion and no evidence was led to displace it. The confession was corroborated by documentary material and surrounding circumstances indicating acquisition of foreign exchange on forged import documents and remittance abroad. The Court also accepted that clandestine dealings, being within the appellant's special knowledge, remained unexplained. On that basis, the findings of contravention under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act were upheld and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the findings of contravention under Section 8(3) and Section 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could be sustained on the basis of a retracted confession supported by documentary and circumstantial evidence.

Analysis: The Court held that a bare allegation that the confession was obtained under coercion or duress was insufficient to discard it. The burden lay on the person retracting the confession to adduce evidence showing why it should be rejected, and no such evidence was led. The confession was supported by documentary material and attendant circumstances showing that the foreign exchange had been acquired on forged import documents and remitted abroad. The Court also accepted the view that matters of clandestine dealing, being within the special knowledge of the appellant, were not satisfactorily explained.

Conclusion: The findings of contravention were upheld and the appeal failed.

---