Retracted statement and foreign exchange presumption upheld where coercion was unproven and lawful possession was not shown.

A retracted statement may still be relied upon if the maker fails to prove inducement, threat, coercion, or other improper means; absent such proof, the statement remains voluntary and admissible. The statutory presumption governing possession of foreign exchange beyond the prescribed limit placed the burden on the person in possession to show lawful possession, and failure to rebut that presumption sustained the finding of contravention. The adjudication order, including penalty and confiscation, was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's recorded statement could be acted upon despite the subsequent retraction and allegation of coercion. (ii) Whether the appellant had discharged the burden under the statutory presumption applicable to possession of foreign exchange.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's recorded statement could be acted upon despite the subsequent retraction and allegation of coercion.

Analysis: The statement recorded by the enforcement officials was challenged as having been obtained by threat and duress, but no material was brought on record to make such coercion probable. A retracted statement is not, by that fact alone, involuntary or inadmissible. The maker must establish inducement, threat, coercion, or other improper means, and in the absence of such proof the statement may be relied upon.

Conclusion: The statement was held to be voluntary and admissible, and the challenge to its use failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant had discharged the burden under the statutory presumption applicable to possession of foreign exchange.

Analysis: The relevant statutory presumption placed the burden on a person found in possession of foreign exchange exceeding the prescribed limit to prove lawful possession. The seized foreign currency value was well above the statutory threshold, and no effective material was produced to rebut the presumption.

Conclusion: The burden was not discharged, and the finding of contravention was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication order was upheld in full, and the penalty and confiscation were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted statement may be relied upon if it is not shown to have been obtained by coercion or other improper means, and where a statutory presumption shifts the burden of explaining lawful possession of foreign exchange, failure to rebut that presumption sustains the finding of contravention.

---