Penalty cannot rest on an untested co-accused statement without independent corroboration or cross-examination.

Penalty could not be sustained where it rested only on the statement of a co-accused who was not traceable, had given a fake address, never appeared before the adjudicating authority, and was unavailable for cross-examination. In the absence of any independent incriminating document or material from the appellants' premises, and without corroborative evidence supporting the allegation, reliance on such an untested statement was impermissible for imposing penalty. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty could be sustained solely on the basis of the statement of a co-accused who was not traceable, had given a fake address, did not appear before the adjudicating authority, and was not available for cross-examination, in the absence of any independent corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The penalty was founded only on the statement of a co-accused from whose possession the contraband was stated to have been recovered. That person was not traceable, his address was found to be fake, and he never appeared during the adjudication proceedings. No incriminating document or material was recovered from the appellants' premises, and no independent corroboration supported the charge. In such circumstances, reliance on an untested and uncorroborated statement of a person not available for cross-examination was held to be impermissible for sustaining penalty.

Conclusion: Penalty was held to be not imposable in the absence of independent corroboration, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---