Accomplice evidence needs independent corroboration in material particulars before a conviction for foreign exchange contravention can stand.

Accomplice evidence in a foreign exchange contravention case cannot safely sustain conviction unless it is corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence connecting the accused with the offence. The court found the corroboration relied on by the prosecution unsatisfactory because the ship officers' identification was uncertain and inconsistent, no test identification parade was held, and the documents, diary entry, telephone references and addresses did not establish the accused's role in sending the gold. The alleged sudden wealth was also insufficient. The charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction and sentence could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act could be sustained on the testimony of an accomplice without reliable corroboration in material particulars.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested substantially on the evidence of Eickhoff, who implicated the accused as the person who supplied the gold for carriage to India. The Court held that accomplice testimony ordinarily requires corroboration in material particulars by independent evidence, and that no exceptional circumstance justified dispensing with that safeguard. The alleged corroboration from the evidence of the ship officers was found unsatisfactory because their identification of the accused was uncertain, inconsistent, and unsupported by any test identification parade. The surrounding documents, diary entry, and references to telephone numbers and addresses were held insufficient to connect the accused with the actual sending of gold. The supposed circumstance of sudden wealth was also rejected as incapable of establishing a causal link with the alleged smuggling transaction.

Conclusion: The accomplice evidence was not reliably corroborated, and the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction cannot safely rest on accomplice evidence unless it is corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence connecting the accused with the offence.

---