Retracted custodial confession remains usable absent coercion, while foreign exchange penalties must reflect the offender's limited role.

A retracted custodial confession remains evidentially usable unless the maker shows inducement, threat, coercion, promise, or other improper means; mere custody does not by itself make the statement inadmissible. The burden lies on the person retracting the confession to establish such vitiating circumstances, and absent that material the inculpatory statement may be relied on. In foreign exchange contravention matters, penalty should also be proportionate to the offender's actual role and financial position. Where the person acted only as a carrier rather than the principal offender, a penalty comparable to that imposed on the principal may be excessive and may be reduced accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's custodial confessional statement was voluntary and could be relied upon despite retraction. (ii) Whether the penalty imposed under the foreign exchange law was excessive and required reduction having regard to the appellant's role.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's custodial confessional statement was voluntary and could be relied upon despite retraction.

Analysis: A confession made in custody is not inadmissible merely because it was recorded while the maker was in custody. The controlling question is whether it was obtained by inducement, threat, coercion, promise, or other improper means. The initial burden lies on the maker of the statement to establish such vitiating circumstances. In the absence of material showing inducement, threat, coercion, or promise, the retraction does not by itself displace the evidentiary value of the inculpatory statement.

Conclusion: The confession was treated as voluntary, true, and reliable, and could be acted upon.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed under the foreign exchange law was excessive and required reduction having regard to the appellant's role.

Analysis: The appellant was found to have acted only as a carrier and not as the principal offender. In that setting, the penalty had to bear a reasonable relation to the appellant's limited role and financial condition. A punitive amount comparable to that imposed on a principal offender would be harsh and excessive.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced substantially to a lower amount consistent with the appellant's role as a carrier.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reduction of penalty, while the finding of contravention based on the confession was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted custodial confession remains usable unless the maker establishes inducement, threat, coercion, promise, or other improper means, and penalty in foreign exchange contraventions must be proportionate to the offender's role.

---