Retracted confession and corroborative documents can sustain foreign exchange contravention; partnership firm cannot be penalised separately from its partner.

Retracted statements may be relied on where no inducement, threat, or coercion is shown and the retraction appears to be an afterthought; corroborative seized documents, third-party statements, and admissions can sustain a finding of contravention under sections 9(1)(b) and 16(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The statutory presumption attaching to seized documents supported the inference drawn from the surrounding circumstances, so the violation was sustained. On penalty, a partnership firm and its partner cannot both be penalised separately for the same contravention; liability was therefore shifted to the partner responsible for the business, while the penalty on the firm was deleted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the retracted statements and seized documents were reliable and sufficient to sustain the finding of contravention of sections 9(1)(b) and 16(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973; (ii) whether penalty could be sustained both against the partnership firm and its partner for the same contravention.

Issue (i): Whether the retracted statements and seized documents were reliable and sufficient to sustain the finding of contravention of sections 9(1)(b) and 16(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: The retraction was rejected as an afterthought because no material was produced to show inducement, threat, or coercion. The seized documents, the statement of the third party from whose premises they were recovered, and the admissions made by the appellant formed a coherent body of corroborative evidence. The documents were held to be capable of being used against the appellants, and the statutory presumption regarding seized documents supported the inference drawn from the surrounding circumstances.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention under sections 9(1)(b) and 16(1) was sustained against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty could be sustained both against the partnership firm and its partner for the same contravention.

Analysis: The penalty was examined in the light of the principle that a partnership firm is only a compendious name for its partners and that both cannot be penalised simultaneously for the same contravention. On that basis, the liability was shifted from the firm to the partner responsible for the affairs of the business, while the remaining penalties were found proportionate to the violations established on record.

Conclusion: The penalty on the partnership firm was set aside, but the penalty against the partner was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by sustaining the substantive findings of violation while granting limited relief by deleting the penalty imposed on the partnership firm.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted confession can be relied upon when it is corroborated by surrounding evidence and the maker fails to show coercion or involuntariness, and a partnership firm should not be penalised separately from the partner for the same contravention.

---