TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (10) TMI 191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant for contravention of the provisions of Ss. 4(1), 5(1)(aa) and 5(1)(d) of the Act and ultimately, penalties totalling Rs. 66,880/- were imposed by the learned Director of Enforcement. Aggrieved, appellant approached in appeal the Foreign Exchange Appellate Board and this appeal was partly allowed and the penalty reduced as above. The facts leading to be proceeding are as follows:- On basis of information that the appellant was indulging in the purchase and sale of foreign exchange, officers of the Enforcement Directorate, Panaji kept a watch and on 13th Oct. 1970 intercepted him near the Panaji wharf and Recovered from his custody some foreign exchange, namely $370 U.S. Dollars and Frs. 30 and some papers. The residential premi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the appellant rests such, on the contention that the confession was wrongly made by him and that in any event, the same was retracted and hence, in the absence of proper corroboration, could not have been relied upon to hold him guilty of the contraventions allegedly committed by him and to impose thereafter penalties on him. 3. No doubt, as held by the Supreme Court in Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Madurai v. Commr. of Income-tax, Madras (AIR 1957 SC 49) a finding on a question of fact is open to attack as erroneous in law, but such attack can be done only if the said finding is not supported by any evidence, or if it is reasonable and perverse. However inferences from facts that themselves are inferences of fact and not of law, are not op....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on that appellant had been under custody during the relevant time he was interrogated. Such custody is not proved and, on the contrary, the learned appellate court held that it was never the case of the appellant that he had been detained and kept in custody by the Enforcement Officers, and this implies that the learned Board arrived at the finding of fact that appellant was not in custody at the relevant time. This finding, being purely of fact and arrived at also purely from the facts is not open to review by this Court and has as such, to be accepted. This being so, the above ruling of the Supreme Court in Nathu's case is distinguishable and is not applicable to this case. 4. It was further urged by Mr. Kakodkar that the said statem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Advocate, that the statements made to an Enforcement Officer, whose powers are similar and akin to those of a Customs Officer, are admissible in evidence. I fully endorse this view and find as such, no substance in the contention of Mr. Kakodkar to the contrary. It is quite true, as observed by the learned Board, that under the Act an Enforcement Officer is not authorized to summon persons and to record their statements. But as also correctly held, there is no bar to the questioning of a person apprehended by such officers or whose premises were searched, and the confessional statements made in answer to the questioning constitute extra judicial confessions. 5. But confessions, whether judicial or extra judicial, must be voluntary and gen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....significant because it hints at the voluntary character and genuineness of the confessional statements, clearly showing that the theory of duress and coercion advanced at a later stage is an afterthought which has no support in the evidence and in circumstances of the case. So also, the constant changing stands taken by the appellant about the finding of the foreign exchange in his custody, namely that no foreign exchange, was found on him, that the same was planted on him by one Mr. John D'Souza and finally, that the same was foisted on him by the Enforcement Officers go a long way to show that the appellant, caught red handed with the foreign exchange and being unable to explain that he was in possession thereof in a lawful manner, ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... itself, even if he has retracted it at a later stage, nevertheless Courts shall require some corroboration to the confessional statement before convicting an accused on such a statement. Then, in Nazir v. Emperor, it was held that a retracted (confession of a co-accused is not sufficient for conviction unless corroborated in the material particulars. Similarly, in 'Arjuna Lal Misra v. The State' (AIR 1953 SC 411) : (1953 Cri.L.J. 1633) it was held that a conviction solely based on the retracted confession is opposed to law and does not therefore stand. And in Muthuswami's case, the Supreme Court observed that no hard and fast rule can be laid down regarding the necessity of corroboration in the case of retracted confession in o....