Confiscation requires reliable proof, not suspicion: alleged sale of a Bhutanese vehicle was not substantiated.

The confiscation of a Bhutanese vehicle and the penalty were found unsustainable because the alleged sale to the appellant was not proved by reliable evidence. The record supported the explanation that the vehicle had been brought into India for repair, that it belonged to Major L.B. Sunuwar, and that an intermediary arranged the repair. Delay in repair, alleged Indian-origin parts, and minor statement discrepancies were insufficient to establish unlawful acquisition, as suspicion cannot replace proof. Observations on the origin and age of parts were also treated as inadmissible without expert evidence or opportunity for rebuttal. The vehicle was ordered released and the penalty set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the Bhutanese vehicle and the penalty imposed on the appellant were sustainable on the evidence adduced, and whether the finding that the vehicle had been sold to the appellant could be upheld.

Analysis: The vehicle was brought into India from Bhutan for repair purposes, a use which the record itself recognised as permissible for a limited period. The evidence showed that the car belonged to Major L.B. Sunuwar, that Mrs. C.S. Lama acted as an intermediary for repairs, and that the appellant's explanation that the vehicle was left at his garage for repair was not unreasonable. The authority's conclusion of sale rested mainly on delay in repair, alleged Indian-origin parts, and minor discrepancies in statements. Those circumstances were held to be insufficient, because suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. The observations regarding the origin and age of parts were also treated as inadmissible as expert evidence was lacking and the parties had no opportunity to rebut them.

Conclusion: The finding of sale was not legally sustainable, and the confiscation and penalty could not be maintained. The appeals were allowed and the vehicle was ordered to be released to Major L.B. Sunuwar while the penalty on Hemraj Agarwalla was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A confiscation and penalty based on alleged unlawful acquisition must rest on reliable proof, and not merely on suspicion, conjecture, or unsupported inferences from surrounding circumstances.

---