FERA contravention may be proved by recovery, corroboration, and a voluntary retracted statement despite search irregularities.

Under FERA proceedings, contravention may be established through recovery and surrounding circumstances where the evidence forms a coherent chain. A retracted inculpatory statement can still be relied on if it is found voluntary and is corroborated by independent material, and the absence of convincing proof of coercion or duress supports its acceptance. Irregularity in search procedure does not by itself nullify the fact of recovery, and objections based on denial of cross-examination or alleged natural justice violations will not defeat the charge where the record otherwise supports proof beyond reasonable doubt. On the facts noted, the contraventions were proved and the penalty was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants contravened the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 by attempting to purchase or sell foreign exchange at rates other than the prescribed rate, and whether the penalty could be sustained despite objections based on search procedure, retracted confession, denial of cross-examination, and reliance on co-noticee statements.

Analysis: The recovery of a substantial quantity of foreign exchange from the car and the surrounding circumstances, including the relationship between the appellants, their telephone contacts, the interception of the car in front of the appellant's house, and the accompanying papers, were treated as strong corroborative material. The retracted statement of the co-noticee was accepted as voluntary and reliable in the absence of convincing proof of coercion or duress, and it was not displaced by the challenge to the search witnesses or the request for cross-examination. The Tribunal held that irregularity in the search did not nullify the fact of recovery, that the principles of natural justice were not violated on the record, and that the statutory and evidentiary objections did not undermine the overall proof of contravention. The circumstantial evidence was found sufficient to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt in FERA proceedings.

Conclusion: The contraventions under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were proved, and the penalty order was upheld; the objections to the evidence and procedure were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted inculpatory statement may be relied upon when it is found voluntary and is corroborated by surrounding circumstances and recovery, and irregularities in search procedure do not by themselves disprove the substantive contravention.

---