Retracted confession needs corroboration, and a plausible defence will sustain acquittal where evidence supports two views.

A retracted confession under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could not, by itself, sustain the prosecution case without corroboration, and the failure to examine the persons allegedly involved in the payments further weakened the charge. The accused's documentary explanation for the seized money was accepted as raising a plausible defence, and the evidence admitted two reasonable views. In an appeal against acquittal, the view favourable to the accused was preferred because the trial court's appreciation was not perverse. The acquittal was therefore upheld and the prosecution challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the prosecution proved the charge under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on the basis of the seized materials and the accused's statement, and (ii) whether the defence version and the plea of alibi justified interference with the acquittal.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution proved the charge under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on the basis of the seized materials and the accused's statement.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested substantially on the accused's statement before the Enforcement Directorate and the alleged seizure of currency. The statement was retracted, and the Court treated a retracted confession as not substantive evidence by itself, requiring corroboration. The prosecution also did not examine the persons to whom the alleged illegal payments were made, and the absence of such direct evidence weakened the foundation of the charge.

Conclusion: The charge was not proved against the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the defence version and the plea of alibi justified interference with the acquittal.

Analysis: The respondent produced documents to support the case that the seized money had been earned through construction-related activity. The Court found that two views were possible on the evidence: one supporting the prosecution version and the other supporting the defence version. In such a situation, the view favourable to the accused was preferred, and the trial court's appreciation of evidence was not found to be perverse.

Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld and no interference was called for.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed, and the order of acquittal remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted confession requires corroboration, and where the evidence admits of two reasonable views, the view favouring the accused must prevail in an appeal against acquittal.

---