Retracted confessions and corroborative evidence sustained penalty for abetment in foreign exchange contraventions.

Retracted statements may be relied on where they are found voluntary, credible, and supported by surrounding or corroborative material, and mere retraction without proof of coercion is insufficient to discard them. Denial of cross-examination does not vitiate adjudication unless a real necessity for it is shown. Active participation in facilitating prohibited foreign exchange transactions, with knowledge of the arrangement, amounts to abetment; in a regulatory regime of strict liability, proof of the contravention is enough to sustain penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's retracted statements were voluntary and admissible, and whether denial of cross-examination vitiated the adjudication; (ii) Whether the appellant's role amounted to abetment of the foreign exchange contraventions and justified the penalty.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's retracted statements were voluntary and admissible, and whether denial of cross-examination vitiated the adjudication.

Analysis: The statements recorded during investigation were found to be supported by surrounding circumstances, including seizure of documents, recovery of cash from the principal noticee, and the appellant's own admissions regarding knowledge of the hawala transactions. Mere retraction, without credible material showing coercion or duress, was held insufficient to discard the statements. The request for cross-examination was also rejected as no sufficient basis was shown to make it necessary, and the adjudication was not found to be contrary to natural justice on that ground.

Conclusion: The retracted statements were treated as admissible, and the challenge based on denial of cross-examination failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's role amounted to abetment of the foreign exchange contraventions and justified the penalty.

Analysis: The appellant's close association with the principal noticee, his admissions, the corroboration from the co-noticee, and the documentary and circumstantial material established active participation in the receipt and payment of Indian currency on instructions from persons resident outside India. The Tribunal treated such conduct as intentional aiding amounting to abetment under the foreign exchange law, and held that proof of contravention was sufficient for penalty in a regulatory regime of strict liability.

Conclusion: The charge of abetment and contravention was proved, and the penalty was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits, and the impugned penalty order was sustained in full.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted confession may be relied upon if it is found voluntary and true and is supported by surrounding or corroborative material, and active participation with knowledge in facilitating prohibited foreign exchange transactions constitutes abetment attracting penalty under a regulatory statute.

---