Mistaken identity in alleged hawala contravention defeated the charge where records failed to link the appellant to the offender.

Where the alleged contravener's identity is not established, proceedings cannot be sustained against a wrongly named person. The record, including the panchnama, voters' lists and the statement relied on by the adjudicating authority, did not show that the appellant was the individual named in the fax message. The materials instead indicated two different persons with different addresses, and the investigating agency did not clarify who actually committed the alleged hawala transactions. On that evidence, the charge against the appellant was not proved and the implication was held to be mistaken identity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had been wrongly implicated on account of mistaken identity and whether the identity of the person alleged to have committed the contravention was proved.

Analysis: The material on record, including the panchnama, voters' lists, and the statement relied upon by the adjudicating authority, did not establish that the appellant and the person named in the fax message were the same individual. The documents instead pointed to two different persons with different addresses. The adjudicating authority and the investigating agency failed to clarify the identity of the actual offender, and the evidence on record did not link the appellant to the alleged hawala transactions.

Conclusion: The appellant was wrongly implicated and the charge against him was not proved.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the alleged contravener's identity is not established and the evidence points to a different person, the proceeding cannot be sustained against the wrongly named appellant.

---