Appeal overturns penalty for alleged currency smuggling, finding innocence irrelevant. Confiscation upheld.

The appeal challenged the imposition of a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act for alleged currency smuggling. The appellant was found with foreign currency upon arrival in Bombay, but the court found no evidence linking him to smuggling or facilitating its importation. While the currency was confiscated, the penalty was set aside as the appellant's innocence was deemed irrelevant to the penalty clause. The judgment allowed the appeal in part, overturning the penalty while confirming the currency confiscation.

---

---

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act
- Confiscation of foreign currency
- Appellant's alleged involvement in smuggling currency
- Applicability of penalty clause

The judgment pertains to an appeal against the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Act by the Commissioner. The appellant was found carrying a small screwdriver, circuit tester, and metallic part along with foreign currency upon landing in Bombay. The Department alleged that the appellant was instructed to retrieve the currency from an aircraft's toilet during his flight back to Bombay, leading to the confiscation of the currency and the imposition of the penalty. However, the appellant contested the allegations, stating that he did not smuggle the currency into the country and that the currency importation was not facilitated by him.

The Counsel for the appellant argued that there was no evidence of smuggling by the appellant, as he returned from Singapore without any allegations of bringing in currency. Import of currency is permissible with a declaration for amounts exceeding US $10,000, which does not automatically render the currency liable to confiscation. The Departmental representative contended that since the currency was found in the appellant's possession, penalty under Section 112(a) should apply. However, the judge disagreed, emphasizing that there was no evidence of the appellant's involvement in importing the currency or facilitating its importation.

The judge rejected the argument that penalty under Section 112(a) could be imposed on the appellant, as there was no allegation of his role in importing the currency. The judgment confirmed the confiscation of the currency but set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. The judge concluded that the appellant's innocence of the attributed act was not relevant to the penalty clause's application. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed in part, with the penalty being overturned while confirming the currency confiscation.

---

---