Retraction of confessional statement rejected where corroboration supported voluntariness, sustaining foreign exchange contravention and penalty.

A retracted confessional statement may be relied on where the maker fails to prove coercion, inducement, threat or undue influence, and where the retraction is not shown to have been made at the earliest opportunity. Here, the recorded statement was corroborated by surrounding circumstances, including recovery of currency and transactions traced through a co-noticee, so it was treated as voluntary and reliable. On that basis, the finding of contravention of section 9(1)(b) and section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was sustained, and the penalty was confirmed as proportionate to the misconduct.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's retracted confessional statement was voluntary and reliable, and whether the finding of contravention of section 9(1)(b) and section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the penalty imposed thereunder were sustainable.

Analysis: The appellant retracted the statement alleging coercion, but the burden of establishing inducement, threat or undue influence lay on the maker of the statement. No material was produced to show that the statement was involuntary or that the retraction was made at the earliest opportunity. The recorded statement was supported by the surrounding circumstances, including the recovery of currency and the chain of transactions traced through the co-noticee, and the evidence was sufficient to corroborate the admission. On that basis, the finding of contravention under the relevant foreign exchange restrictions was upheld, and the quantum of penalty was found to be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.

Conclusion: The appellant's challenge failed. The confession was treated as voluntary and truthful, the contravention was sustained, and the penalty was confirmed.

---