Retracted statements need independent proof before foreign exchange contravention, confiscation, and penalties can be sustained.

A finding of foreign exchange contravention cannot rest solely on retracted statements that are reasonably suspected to have been obtained under coercion or assault, especially where contemporaneous medical material and prompt retraction cast doubt on voluntariness. The Tribunal held that such statements required caution and that mere suspicion or non-appearance in response to summons could not substitute for dependable independent evidence. As the remaining material did not prove the alleged breaches, the adjudication failed. The confiscation of currency and silver, along with the penalties imposed, also could not survive because they depended on the same discredited material and were therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication findings based substantially on retracted statements and alleged confessions could be sustained, and whether the consequential penalties and confiscation orders were liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the earliest statements relied upon by the adjudicating authority were surrounded by strong suspicion of coercion and physical assault, supported by the contemporaneous medical material and the petitions moved before the Magistrate on the very next day of arrest. It held that the adjudicating authority ought not to have treated those statements as voluntary without caution, particularly when the statements had been promptly retracted. The Tribunal further held that the remaining material did not constitute dependable independent evidence to prove the alleged contraventions, and that mere suspicion or non-appearance in response to summons could not replace legal proof.

Conclusion: The findings of contravention were unsustainable and were set aside.

Issues: Whether the orders of confiscation and penalty could survive after the findings of contravention were set aside.

Analysis: Once the Tribunal concluded that the basis for the adjudication had failed, the confiscation of currency and silver and the penalties imposed on the appellants could no longer stand. The impugned order rested on the same discredited materials and therefore did not survive independently.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty orders were quashed and the appeals were allowed.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication could not be sustained on the evidence relied upon, and all consequential penal and confiscatory directions were set aside in favour of the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding of contravention cannot rest solely on retracted statements that are reasonably suspected to have been obtained under coercion unless supported by independent reliable evidence.

---