Retracted confessions need independent corroboration in foreign exchange cases; penalties fail where voluntariness and proof are not established.

Penalties for alleged foreign exchange contraventions could not be sustained on retracted confessional statements alone. A retracted confession is usable only if it is shown to be voluntary and true, and it must be supported by independent corroboration in broad substance; here, the statements were not satisfactorily proved voluntary, co-noticees on identical facts had already been exonerated, and no adequate evidence established the alleged foreign instructions, nexus with foreign persons, or the transaction details. Suspicion alone could not replace proof, so the penalties failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalties for alleged contraventions of foreign exchange law could be sustained on the basis of retracted confessional statements without independent corroboration.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that a retracted confession can be relied upon only if it is shown to be voluntary and true, and that corroboration from independent material is required at least in broad substance. It found that the statements relied upon were not satisfactorily shown to be voluntary, the co-noticees on identical facts had been exonerated, and no adequate corroborative evidence was produced to establish the alleged instructions from abroad, the nexus with foreign persons, or the quantum and manner of the alleged transactions. The Tribunal also noted that the case could not rest on suspicion alone.

Conclusion: The penalties were not sustainable and the appellants succeeded.

---