Retracted confession cannot support conviction without full corroboration; acquittal upheld for lack of independent evidence.

A conviction for offences under the Customs Act and the Imports and Exports (Control) Act cannot safely rest solely on retracted statements unless they are independently and fully corroborated by reliable evidence connecting the accused to the offence. Here, there was no direct evidence that the respondent concealed silver in the car or attempted export, and recovery from the petrol tank alone did not establish involvement, especially as the car had already been loaded and was no longer under his control when seizure occurred. Because the statements were retracted at the first opportunity and lacked adequate independent support, the acquittal was properly maintained and the State appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's acquittal for offences under the Customs Act and the Imports and Exports (Control) Act was liable to be interfered with despite the prosecution relying mainly on retracted statements recorded under the Customs Act.

Analysis: The prosecution had no direct evidence that the respondent concealed silver in the car or attempted to export it. The seizure of silver from the petrol tank was not enough, by itself, to connect him with the offence, particularly because the car had already been loaded and was no longer in his control when the recovery was made. The respondent's statements recorded under the Customs Act were retracted at the first opportunity. In the absence of independent and full corroboration, it was unsafe to base a conviction solely on those retracted statements.

Conclusion: The acquittal was rightly maintained and the State's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction should not rest solely on a retracted confession unless it is independently and fully corroborated by reliable evidence connecting the to the offence.

---