Retracted confession and uncorroborated seizure evidence could not sustain customs conviction, leading to acquittal.

Conviction for customs and foreign exchange offences could not be sustained where the seizure was proved only through the inspecting officer, the attesting witnesses to the mahazars were not examined, and the record contained discrepancies about the timing and manner of seizure. The prosecution lacked corroboration on a material aspect. The alleged confession was recorded after prolonged custody, and the surrounding circumstances made voluntariness doubtful. A retracted confession, without satisfactory proof of voluntariness, was held unsafe to rely on. On that basis, the conviction and sentence were set aside and acquittal followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for customs and foreign exchange offences could be sustained on the basis of the solitary testimony of the seizing officer and a retracted confession.

Analysis: The seizure was spoken to only by the inspecting officer, while the attesting witnesses to the mahazars were not examined, leaving the prosecution without corroborative evidence on a material aspect. The record also showed discrepancies regarding the timing and manner of seizure. The alleged confession was recorded after the accused had remained in custody for a substantial period, and the surrounding circumstances made voluntariness doubtful. A retracted confession, when its voluntariness is not satisfactorily established, cannot be safely relied upon, and the conviction could not stand on the available evidence.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were unsustainable and were set aside, resulting in acquittal of the revision petitioner.

---