Voluntary confession and corroborative evidence upheld penalty under foreign exchange law despite challenge to documentary proof.

A voluntary confession admitting receipt of money in India on instructions of a person resident outside India was treated as admissible, and the absence of retraction supported reliance on it. The Tribunal applied settled principles on confessions and held that corroboration need not cover every detail where the broad trend is supported by other material. It also found that the lack of joint proceedings against the third party did not make the documentary evidence unusable, especially when no satisfactory explanation was offered for the transaction records. The presumption under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was applied, and the penalty was not found excessive in the circumstances.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed for contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could be interfered with on the grounds that the appellant's confession was inadmissible without joint proceedings against a third party and that the material lacked sufficient corroboration.

Analysis: The appellant's statement admitting receipt of money in India under instructions of a person resident outside India was treated as a voluntary confession and was not shown to have been retracted. The settled law on confessions was applied to hold that a voluntary and true confession may be acted upon, and that corroboration need not extend to every material particular if the broad trend of the statement is supported by other evidence. The absence of joint proceedings against the third party did not by itself render the documentary material unusable, particularly when the appellant offered no satisfactory explanation for the documents showing the transaction. The Tribunal also applied the evidentiary presumption under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and found that the quantum of penalty was not excessive in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The challenge to the penalty order failed, and the impugned order was upheld against the appellant.

---