1955 (3) TMI 4 - HC - FEMA

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
2. Contravention of an order under Section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
3. Reliability of accomplice testimony.
4. Corroboration of evidence.
5. Identification of the accused.
6. Circumstantial evidence and sudden accumulation of wealth.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act:
The appellant was convicted under Section 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act for sending a large quantity of gold to India without a permit. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 50,000, with an additional six months of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment.

2. Contravention of an order under Section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act:
The appellant was accused of contravening an order under Section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act by sending gold through Eickhoff, the Second Engineer of the "Eastern Queen." The gold was seized by Customs authorities upon the ship's arrival in Calcutta.

3. Reliability of accomplice testimony:
The primary evidence against the appellant was the testimony of Eickhoff, who claimed that the appellant had asked him to carry gold to Calcutta. The court emphasized that it is generally unsafe to rely on the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by independent evidence. The court found no exceptional circumstances to accept Eickhoff's testimony without corroboration.

4. Corroboration of evidence:
The court scrutinized the corroborative evidence and found it lacking. The oral testimonies of Bradley and Parish were deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of substantial details. Parish's inability to provide specific details about his acquaintance with the appellant and Bradley's uncertain identification of the appellant weakened their testimonies.

5. Identification of the accused:
The court noted that the identification of the appellant by witnesses was not tested through a test identification parade. Parish and Bradley's testimonies failed to convincingly establish that they knew the appellant well enough to accurately identify him. The court found their evidence vague and indefinite.

6. Circumstantial evidence and sudden accumulation of wealth:
The prosecution argued that the appellant's sudden accumulation of wealth, evidenced by his travels and purchase of a car, indicated his involvement in the smuggling. The court found this reasoning speculative and insufficient to establish a causal connection between the appellant's wealth and the smuggling of gold.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the prosecution failed to provide reliable corroboration of Eickhoff's testimony. The inconsistencies and lack of substantial evidence from other witnesses, combined with the speculative nature of the circumstantial evidence, led the court to determine that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the appellant's acquittal. The court also withdrew the travel restrictions previously imposed on the appellant.