Retracted confession and weak corroboration could not sustain foreign exchange penalty in quasi-criminal proceedings.

In quasi-criminal proceedings under foreign exchange law, a retracted statement can sustain liability only if it is voluntary and corroborated in material particulars. The tribunal found that the appellant's statements were promptly retracted and were not reliable voluntary admissions, and the seized documents did not provide adequate corroboration of the alleged foreign-directed payments. On that basis, the contravention was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the penalty could not be sustained, and the impugned penalty order was set aside with release of the seized amount.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty for contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could be sustained on the basis of the appellant's retracted statements and the seized material.

Analysis: The statements recorded from the appellant were retracted at the earliest stages and were not treated as voluntary admissions. A retracted confession, in proceedings of quasi-criminal nature, cannot be acted upon unless it is shown to be voluntary and corroborated in material particulars. The seized documents and the materials relied upon did not furnish reliable corroboration sufficient to prove the alleged receipt of foreign-directed payments beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and the finding of contravention under section 9(1)(b) failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the penalty order was set aside, and the seized amount was directed to be released.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings of quasi-criminal character, a retracted confession can sustain liability only if it is shown to be voluntary and is corroborated in material particulars; absent such corroboration, the charge is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

---