https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259494 A co-accused's confession could not be used as substantive evidence against the respondent because there was no joint trial under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the prosecution lacked independent corroboration. The absence of seizure witnesses further weakened the case. Although foreign exchange law presumptions can shift evidentiary burdens, they do not relieve the prosecution of proving a foundational case. Evidence of detention, injuries, medical records, and an explanation for the money raised a reasonable doubt and rebutted the prosecution version. The acquittal was therefore affirmed because the charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. en-us Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259494 A co-accused's confession could not be used as substantive evidence against the respondent because there was no joint trial under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the prosecution lacked independent corroboration. The absence of seizure witnesses further weakened the case. Although foreign exchange law presumptions can shift evidentiary burdens, they do not relieve the prosecution of proving a foundational case. Evidence of detention, injuries, medical records, and an explanation for the money raised a reasonable doubt and rebutted the prosecution version. The acquittal was therefore affirmed because the charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259494