Retracted confession and no fixed limitation period under FERA supported maintainability, contravention, and penalty.

A revision under FERA was held maintainable because section 52(4) prescribed no limitation period, and a filing within 100 days was not treated as unreasonable in the circumstances. On merits, a confession before Enforcement Directorate officers was treated as admissible, since such officers are not police officers for sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, and a bare retraction without particulars of coercion or duress did not displace its evidentiary value. The surrounding circumstances, including the cheque transaction involving a non-resident account and the corresponding payment, were sufficient to establish contravention of section 9(1)(a), and the exoneration was reversed with penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision petition was liable to be rejected as delayed in the absence of a prescribed limitation period. (ii) Whether the respondent had committed contravention of section 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on the basis of the confession and surrounding evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the revision petition was liable to be rejected as delayed in the absence of a prescribed limitation period.

Analysis: Section 52(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 did not prescribe a period of limitation for filing the revision. A rigid limitation period for appeal could not be imported into revision proceedings. The petition had been filed within 100 days, which was held not to be unreasonable in the circumstances, particularly as the matter involved a Government department acting through internal hierarchy.

Conclusion: The objection as to delay was rejected and the revision was held to be maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent had committed contravention of section 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on the basis of the confession and surrounding evidence.

Analysis: The confession recorded before officers of the Enforcement Directorate was treated as admissible because such officers are not police officers for the purpose of sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A bare retraction, unsupported by particulars or proof of coercion, threat, or duress, was held insufficient to displace the evidentiary value of the original statement. The surrounding circumstances, including the receipt of the cheque from the non-resident account and the payment made in lieu of it, were held sufficient to prove contravention, and remand was considered unnecessary.

Conclusion: The respondent was held guilty of contravention of section 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the adjudication order of acquittal was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the respondent's exoneration was reversed, and a penalty was imposed for the established foreign exchange contravention.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted confession remains legally usable when it is not shown to have been obtained by threat, coercion, or duress, and a revision under section 52(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is not defeated merely because it is filed after a period that is not shown to be unreasonable.

---