Penalty for gold carriage reduced, while penalties based only on uncorroborated co-accused statements were set aside.

Penalty was maintainable against the appellant in possession of the gold biscuit because recovery from his custody was undisputed, but it was reduced from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 1,000 in view of his role as a carrier and the circumstances pleaded. The penalties on the other two appellants could not stand because they were based only on a co-accused's statement, with no independent corroboration of their involvement. In the absence of supporting evidence, those penalties were set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the penalty on the appellant who was found carrying the gold biscuit was liable to be reduced in the circumstances of the case. (ii) Whether the penalties on the other two appellants could be sustained on the basis of an uncorroborated statement of a co-accused.

Issue (i): Whether the penalty on the appellant who was found carrying the gold biscuit was liable to be reduced in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The recovery of the gold biscuit from the appellant's possession was not disputed. The plea was confined to reduction of penalty on the ground that he was only a carrier, had been induced to transport the biscuit for a small amount, and was in poor financial condition.

Conclusion: The appellant remained liable to penalty, but the penalty was reduced from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 1,000.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalties on the other two appellants could be sustained on the basis of an uncorroborated statement of a co-accused.

Analysis: The penalties on the other two appellants rested on the statement of the co-accused, and no independent evidence corroborated their alleged involvement. In the absence of corroboration, the allegations were not sufficient to sustain the penalties.

Conclusion: The penalties on the other two appellants were not sustainable and their appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

Final Conclusion: The penalty against the carrier was substantially reduced, while the other penalties were set aside for want of corroboration, resulting in a partial success for the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty can be sustained where possession is admitted, but a co-accused's uncorroborated statement is insufficient to uphold penalty against other persons.

---