Foreign exchange penalty failed for lack of cogent evidence and inconsistent material, despite connected criminal acquittal.

Penalty for alleged foreign exchange contravention was found unsustainable where the adjudicatory record did not provide cogent evidence linking the appellant to the disputed payments. The tribunal noted that the finding rested on inference rather than proved facts, while the connected criminal cases on the same allegations had ended in honourable acquittal and full exoneration. Discrepancies in the supporting material and the absence of identification by the recipients further weakened the case. On that basis, continuation of adjudication on the same charges and evidence was treated as unjustified, and the penalty order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty for contravention of foreign exchange law could be sustained when the appellant had been acquitted in connected criminal cases on the same allegations and the adjudicatory record disclosed no cogent evidence of the alleged contravention.

Analysis: The material on record did not establish the appellant's involvement in the alleged payments on the standard applicable to adjudication. The evidentiary basis was found wanting, and the finding of guilt rested on inference rather than proved facts. The connected criminal proceedings, arising from the same accusations and evidence, had ended in the appellant's honourable acquittal and full exoneration, and the circumstances, including the absence of identification by recipients and the discrepancies in the supporting material, weighed against sustaining the penalty. In such a situation, continuation of adjudication on the same charges and same evidence was held to be unjustified.

Conclusion: The penalty order was unsustainable and liable to be set aside; the appeal succeeded.

---