Retracted confession alone cannot support foreign exchange penalty without corroborative evidence or independent material.

A penalty for contravention of foreign exchange law could not be sustained solely on a retracted confession where no documents, seized material, or other independent evidence corroborated the alleged transaction. Although an adjudicating authority may consider a retracted statement, prudence requires caution when it is the only basis for liability, and guilt should not rest on such a statement without extraneous support. On the facts described, the absence of corroboration meant it was unsafe to sustain the finding of contravention, and the benefit of the doubt went to the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty for contravention of Section 5(1)(aa) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 could be sustained solely on the basis of the appellant's retracted confession without corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The only material connecting the appellant with the alleged contravention was his retracted statement. No documents or other independent evidence were seized, and no corroboration was available on any material aspect of the alleged transaction. The adjudicating authority could act on a retracted confession, but prudence requires caution where such a statement stands uncorroborated and is the sole basis for liability. In the absence of extraneous evidence supporting any part of the statement, it was not safe to rest the finding of guilt only on that confession.

Conclusion: The penalty could not be sustained on the retracted confession alone, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

---