Independent corroboration required for customs and gold penalties; an uncorroborated co-accused statement cannot by itself prove liability.

Penalties under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 cannot be sustained on the basis of an uncorroborated co-accused statement alone. A statement lacking independent support, especially where its maker gives inconsistent versions and a police-recorded statement has no evidentiary value for this purpose, is insufficient to prove penal liability. Circumstances such as alleged financial capacity or a bank locker finding, without reliable corroboration, do not establish the charge. The governing principle is that suspicion cannot replace proof, and independent evidence is required to link the person to the seized gold.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalties imposed under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 could be sustained solely on the basis of the statement of a co-accused, without independent corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The statement implicating the appellants was treated as unreliable because it was not supported by independent evidence. A statement recorded before the police was regarded as having no evidentiary value for this purpose, and the subsequent versions given by the maker of the statement showed inconsistency. The circumstances relied upon by the department, including the alleged financial position of the appellants and the bank locker finding, were held insufficient to corroborate the accusation. The governing principle applied was that a co-accused statement or retracted confession may create suspicion, but suspicion cannot replace proof and cannot by itself establish penal liability.

Conclusion: The penalties were not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded because the departmental case failed for want of acceptable independent evidence linking the appellants to the seized gold.

Ratio Decidendi: A penal penalty cannot be sustained merely on an uncorroborated and unreliable co-accused statement; independent evidence is required to prove the charge, and suspicion alone is insufficient.

---