Retracted confession can prove foreign exchange contravention when corroborated; penalty reduced for mitigating personal circumstances.

A retracted confession admitting sale of foreign exchange without Reserve Bank permission can support a finding of contravention under section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, where the maker fails to prove coercion or threat and the admission is corroborated by independent statements and surrounding circumstances; the finding of guilt was upheld. Penalty may nevertheless be moderated where mitigating factors such as advanced age, illness, and financial hardship show that the original amount is disproportionate; the penalty was reduced accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant's contravention of section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, in selling foreign exchange without Reserve Bank permission was proved on the basis of the retracted confession and corroborative material; (ii) whether the penalty imposed was excessive and required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's contravention of section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, in selling foreign exchange without Reserve Bank permission was proved on the basis of the retracted confession and corroborative material.

Analysis: The appellant's statement admitting sale of foreign exchange was retracted on the plea of coercion and threat. The burden to prove such coercion lay on the maker of the statement. The record also contained corroboration from the statement of the intermediary and his employer, together with surrounding circumstances, which supported the admission and the charge of unauthorised dealing in foreign exchange.

Conclusion: The charge under section 8(1) was proved and the finding of guilt was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed was excessive and required reduction.

Analysis: In assessing penalty, the appellant's advanced age, illness, and financial hardship were taken into account. On those mitigating circumstances, the penalty was considered disproportionate to the ends of justice and warranted moderation.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 30,000.

Final Conclusion: The finding of contravention remained intact, but the monetary penalty was substantially reduced in view of mitigating personal circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted confessional statement may sustain a finding of contravention when the maker fails to prove coercion or threat and the statement is corroborated by independent or circumstantial evidence; penalty may be reduced on proven mitigating factors.

---