Statutory burden for lawful possession of foreign exchange not rebutted, supporting confiscation of seized currency

A person found in possession of foreign exchange must discharge the statutory burden of proving lawful acquisition. On the facts discussed, the explanation that the currency belonged to a visitor was rejected because the supporting letter was not produced at search, the date of receipt was unproved, no postal envelope was filed, and the recovery was from an almirah in the appellant's bedroom. The failure to rebut the statutory presumption established contravention under the foreign exchange law, and the recorded findings were treated as sufficient to sustain confiscation of the seized foreign exchange.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant rebutted the statutory burden of proving lawful possession of the seized foreign exchange so as to negate contravention of the foreign exchange law. (ii) Whether confiscation of the seized foreign exchange was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant rebutted the statutory burden of proving lawful possession of the seized foreign exchange so as to negate contravention of the foreign exchange law.

Analysis: The foreign exchange was recovered from the appellant's house, and the statutory burden under the law required him to prove that the foreign exchange came into his possession lawfully. The explanation that the currency belonged to a visitor was found unconvincing because the supporting letter was not produced at the time of search, the date of receipt was not established, the postal envelope was not filed, and the recovery was from an almirah in the appellant's bedroom. The explanation therefore did not discharge the burden cast on him.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption, and contravention was proved against him.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation of the seized foreign exchange was justified.

Analysis: Once the contravention stood established, the confiscation order was supported by the recorded findings that the appellant was engaged in export business, was familiar with foreign exchange requirements, and had given questionable explanations. The reasons recorded were held to be adequate for confiscation under the statute.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the seized foreign exchange was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication order was sustained in full, with the penalty and confiscation remaining undisturbed and the appeal failing on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A person found in possession of foreign exchange must discharge the statutory burden of proving lawful acquisition, and failure to do so justifies a finding of contravention and consequent confiscation.

---