Seizure of foreign gold and voluntary retracted confession sustained penalty in customs and gold control proceedings.

Seizure of foreign gold from the appellant's person was treated as proved where the mahazar and the seizing officer's evidence established recovery. A statement recorded by a competent officer immediately after seizure was held admissible in customs and gold control proceedings; the delayed and unexplained retraction was treated as an afterthought. The plea that the inculpatory statement required corroboration, and the allegation of enmity against the seizing officer, were rejected on the facts because the statement was found voluntary and true. On that basis, the penalty was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of foreign gold from the appellant was proved and whether the appellant's inculpatory statement, later retracted, could be relied upon to sustain the penalty under the customs and gold control laws.

Analysis: The gold was recovered from the appellant's person pursuant to prior information and the mahazar, together with the evidence of the seizing officer, established the recovery. A statement recorded by a competent officer immediately after seizure was admissible in proceedings under the customs and gold control laws. The retraction was delayed and unexplained, and was treated as an afterthought. The plea that the statement required corroboration was rejected on the facts, since the statement was found to be true and voluntary. The challenge to the seizure and the allegation of enmity against the seizing officer were not accepted.

Conclusion: The seizure and the appellant's voluntary inculpatory statement were held to be reliable, and the penalty was sustained.

---