T.P. Nambiar, Member (J)

1. In this case the appellant filed this appeal against the orders passed by the Collector (Appeals), Customs, in Appeal No. C. Ex. 54/84, dated 23-8-1984. He had imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/- on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Originally, the learned adjudicating officer who was the Assistant Collector did not impose any penalty on the appellant. But the learned Collector, in appeal, imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/- on the appellant against which the present appeal is filed. This case pertains to seizure of Bangladesh currency worth 90,000 Takas in denominations of 100 and 500 concealed in the knees of one Shantilal Chhalani on 11-2-1982 while he was travelling in a bus from Karimganj to Shillong. He was intercepted by the BSF personnel. In his statement, he stated that Punam Chand Bhotra is transacting Bangladesh Takas. He also stated that he stayed in the night in Punam Chands place and he paid Rs. 44,500/- in Indian currency to Punam Chand and in exchange got Bangladesh Taka 90,000 from him.

2. When the appeal is called for hearing today, the appellant is absent. He is also represented by nobody. Therefore, we heard Shri B.B. Sarkar, the learned Departmental Representative.

3. The question for our determination is whether on the statement furnished by Santi Lal Chhalani, the appellant can be found guilty. It is now a settled proposition that the confession of a co-accused alone is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the other co-accused. There must be some independent corroboration of the same. In this case, the only evidence available against the appellant is the statement of Santilal Chhalani that he got 90,000 Bangladesh Takas in exchange of Indian currency of Rs. 44,500/- and Punam Chand Bhotra paid the same. So the recovery of 90,000/- Bangladesh Takas is only a part of the statement of Santilal Chhalani. There is no independent corroboration of this evidence. The appellant, when contacted, had denied about this fact at the first instance itself. In such circumstances, the appellant cannot be found guilty only on the un-corroborated testimony of Santilal Chhalani. The learned J.D.R. Shri B.B. Sarkar stated that the same is sufficient and relied on the decision of Sukkar Narains case 1987 (27) E.L.T. 74 (Tri.) . But in Sukkar Narains case decided by the West Regional Bench of the Tribunal, in addition to the confession of the co-accused, there were the account books and the evidence of the crew members which corroborated the same. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed and the penalty of Rs. 500/- imposed on the appellant is hereby set aside.