Retracted statement and attempt: corroboration upheld, but mere preparation did not amount to contravention.
A retracted statement may be acted upon when it is independently corroborated by reliable contemporaneous material; here, seized foreign aerograms found at the appellant's residence supported the statement through matching addresses, coded references and telephone details. The governing test for attempt required conduct to move beyond preparation into direct movement towards commission. On the facts, telephoning the proposed payer and asking whether money was ready was only preparation, as no further step was taken before intervention. The finding of contravention could not stand, and the penalty order was set aside.
Issues: (i) whether the appellant's retracted statement was sufficiently corroborated to be relied upon; (ii) whether the proved acts amounted to an attempt to contravene section 5(1)(aa) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, or only preparation.
Issue (i): whether the appellant's retracted statement was sufficiently corroborated to be relied upon.
Analysis: The statement was supported by the two foreign aerograms seized from the appellant's residence. The letters were addressed to him, recovered from his premises, and their contents, including coded references and telephone details, were consistent with the explanation given in the statement. On that material, the statement could not be treated as uncorroborated or inherently unreliable.
Conclusion: The retracted statement was sufficiently corroborated and could be acted upon.
Issue (ii): whether the proved acts amounted to an attempt to contravene section 5(1)(aa) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, or only preparation.
Analysis: The governing distinction was that an attempt requires acts moving beyond preparation and into the course of commission. Applying that test, the appellant's conduct went no further than telephoning the proposed payer and enquiring whether the money was ready. No further step was taken before intervention by the authorities, and the acts remained harmless if the appellant changed his mind.
Conclusion: The conduct amounted only to preparation and did not constitute an attempt.
Final Conclusion: The finding of contravention could not stand and the penalty order was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: A person is guilty of attempt only when the overt acts have progressed beyond preparation into a direct movement towards commission, and a retracted statement may be relied upon when it is independently corroborated by reliable contemporaneous material.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
