Corroborated evidence standard in foreign exchange contravention proceedings supports findings only for proved transactions and reduces penalty.

Foreign exchange contravention under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was sustained only where the statement, recovered chits and surrounding circumstances provided reliable corroboration for the specific transaction alleged. The remaining alleged dealings were not proved with sufficient certainty because the money deliverer was not traced and the investigation did not establish those transactions satisfactorily. The finding was therefore confined to the amount supported by the evidence, and the penalty was reduced in light of the appellant's bad health and indigent condition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the contravention of section 9(1)(b) and section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was proved in respect of the entire alleged amount, and whether the penalty required reduction.

Analysis: The allegations rested on the appellant's statement, recovered chits and the surrounding circumstances. The evidence was sufficient only to sustain the finding in relation to the amount for which the chits and statement furnished a reliable basis. The remaining alleged monetary transactions were not established with the same certainty, as the person who delivered the money was not traced and the investigation did not satisfactorily bring out the other transactions. On penalty, the appellant's bad health and indigent condition were taken into account for grant of relief.

Conclusion: The contravention under section 9(1)(b) and section 9(1)(d) was upheld only to the extent of Rs. 1,05,000, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000.

Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained only partial relief, with the finding of contravention sustained for a limited amount and the monetary penalty substantially reduced.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding of contravention in foreign exchange proceedings must rest on reliable and sufficiently corroborated evidence for the specific transaction alleged, and unproved portions of the allegation cannot be sustained merely on suspicion or incomplete material.

---