Confiscation of seized currency upheld; personal penalty reduced after the appellant's initial admission was accepted as reliable evidence.

The appellant's earliest statement at interception, admitting that he had arranged the currency and was carrying it to Dubai for personal use, was treated as reliable evidence; the later claim that the money belonged to third parties was rejected as an afterthought, so confiscation of the seized currency was upheld. On the question of penalty, the authorities found the liability established but considered the personal penalty excessive on the facts, so it was reduced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the seized currency and the personal penalty imposed on the appellant were sustainable, and whether the penalty deserved reduction.

Analysis: The appellant's earliest statement recorded at the time of interception clearly admitted that he had arranged the currency and was carrying it to Dubai for personal use. The later plea that the currency belonged to third parties was treated as an afterthought. The initial admission was treated as valuable evidence, and the finding of liability was upheld. However, in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, the penalty was considered excessive and warranted reduction.

Conclusion: The confiscation of currency was upheld, but the personal penalty was reduced to Rs. 75,000.

---