Judgment :- DAVID ANNOUSSAMY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 against the order dated 8th December, 1981 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (Southern Zone), confirming the order dated 30th June, 1978 of the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras, finding the appellant guilty of contravention of section S (1) (aa)and 5 (1) (c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and imposing upon him penalties of Rs. 5,000 for contravention of each of the above said sections. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are briefly as follows: The appellant received a total sum of Rs. 20,000 in two installments of Rs. 10,000 each from a local person and disbursed a sum of Rs. 17,282 out of that amount, under instructions from his younger brother Manickam of Singapore, a person resident outside India, without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. The appellants house was searched on 5-8-1973, resulting in the seizure of Indian currency valued Rs. 2,718, two chits containing some writings, one letter dated 3-8-1975, written by the appellant but not posted and one empty registered Airmail cover addressed to one Doraiswami by one Arumugham of Singapore. The appellant was then called upon to give his statement in respect of the transactions he was indulging in. In that statement recorded on 3-8-1973, he admitted the receipt and disbursement of the aforesaid amounts through un-authorised channel and explained the documents seized from him. The amount seized from him, viz. , Rs. 2,718 was the balance left with him after disbursements. From that statement, it also flowed that be had credited an amount of Rs. 2,000 in the savings bank account in the name of one Radhakrishnan as per the instructions received from abroad. He then was issued three show cause notices as follows: (a) T. 4/650/mas/74 (SON I) dated 15-7-1974, for contravention of section 5 (i) (a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation. Act, 1947 for having received two payments for Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 20,000 in each 1973 by order of Sri R. Manickam of Singapore a person resident outside India, He was also asked to show cause why the Indian currency of Rs. 2,718 seized from him being the amount involved in the contravention and Rs. Act, 1947 for having received two payments for Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 20,000 in each 1973 by order of Sri R. Manickam of Singapore a person resident outside India, He was also asked to show cause why the Indian currency of Rs. 2,718 seized from him being the amount involved in the contravention and Rs. 2,000 credited into the account of Sri G. Radhakrishnan, which was blocked, being the amount involved in the contravention should not be confiscated to the Central Government, under section 23 (1-B ). A copy of the show cause notice was also sent to Shri S. Radhakrishnan asking him to show cause why the amount of Rs. 2,000 credited into his bank account involved in the contravention should not be confiscated. (b) T. 4/650/mas/74 (SON II) dated 15-7-1974 for contravention of section 5 (1) (c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 in having made a total payment of Rs. 17,282 to persons in India during 1973, by order of Sri R. Manickam of Singapore, a person resident outside India. (c) T. 4/553/mas/73 (SON) dt. 10,2-1975 for contravention of section 5 (1) (aa) read with section 23-B of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947, in having attempted to receive Rs. 20,000 by order of R. Manickam of Singapore, a person resident outside India. T The Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras, found the first two charges proved and accordingly imposed a total penalty of Rs. 10,000, and dropped the remaining charges. On appeal, after hearing the appellant, the Board confirmed the findings and the penalty of Rs. 5,000 in respect of each of the charges and accordingly dismissed the appeal. ( 3 ) THE two points of law urged before us by the learned counsel for the appellant are as follows: - (1) The Authorities below have acted upon a retracted confession without adequate corroborations, which is against law; (2) They have imposed a penalty under section 5 (1) (aa) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 without any clear finding in that regard. Point No. 1 ( 4 ) IN this case there was a statement by the appellant in which he narrated the transactions he was indulging in. He has also given the list of persons to whom money has been disbursed by him, but he has retracted that statement later. Point No. 1 ( 4 ) IN this case there was a statement by the appellant in which he narrated the transactions he was indulging in. He has also given the list of persons to whom money has been disbursed by him, but he has retracted that statement later. In this case the statement gets little corroboration from the documents seized though they are of some help. Learned counsel for the appellant placed before me a decision of the Supreme Co art in Muthuswami v. State of Madras 1, in which it was held that a confession should not be accepted merely 1. AIR 1954 SC 4 . because it contains a wealth of detail which could not have been invented. Unless the main features of the story are shown to be true, it is unsafe to regard mere wealth of uncorroborated detail as a safe-guard of truth. It is true that in this case, that the judgment of the Appellate Board would show that the Board took into account also the wealth of details in the statement of the appellant. But it is seen from the same judgment that the Appellate Board was not only carried away by wealth of statement but also by the fact that the retraction was extremely belated. In fact the show cause notice was issued one year after the search and the retraction wag made five months later. From the little documents seized there was also ground for the Appellate authority of first instance as well as the Appellate Board to come to the conclusion that the appellant has contravened the provisions of Section 5 (i) (c) of the Act. In fact, the Supreme Court in the decision relied upon by the appellant itself has observed that no hard and fast rule can be laid down regarding the necessity of corroboration in the case of a retracted confession in order to base a conviction thereon. We are satisfied that all the main features of the story have been shown to be true in this case as far as contravention under section 5 (1) (c) of the Act concerned. We are satisfied that all the main features of the story have been shown to be true in this case as far as contravention under section 5 (1) (c) of the Act concerned. Point No. 2 S. Section S (1) (aa) of the Act reads as follows p5 (1) Save as may be provided in, and in accordance with any general or special exemption from the provisions of this sub-section which may be granted conditionally or unconditionally by the Reserve Bank, no person in or resident in, India shall - (aa) receive, otherwise than through an authorised dealer, any payment by order or on behalf of any person resident outside India, In this case, though the document of the appellant along with the documents seized have disclosed that the appellant has made several payments by order of his brother Manickam residing in Malaysia which fact constitutes contravention of Section 5 (1) (c) of the Act. There is no clear finding that the two installments of Rs. 10,000 totaling Rs. 20,000 were received by the appellant by order or On behalf of his brother, Manickam of Malaysia. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the fact that he received that amount by order and on behalf of his brother is also attested by the statement made by the appellant upon which the finding is based. In fact, the finding of the appellate authority is entirely based on the statement of the appellant, but we have perused that statement in toto. We were unable to find anywhere that two installments of Rs. 10,000 each have been received just prior to 3-8-1973. Learned counsel for the respondents had also been asked to point out where in the statement exactly there was material to show that these two installments were received by the appellant on behalf of his brother. Though there are many details relating to other amounts of money received at different points of time from his brother Manickam he was not able to show anything in the statement disclosing the receipt of two installments of Rs. 10,000 each just prior to 3-8-1973. Therefore it is clear that the penalty has been levied in this case under section 5 (1) (aa) of the Act without any finding based on adequate materials available on record to support the finding. This point of the appellant is therefore accepted. 10,000 each just prior to 3-8-1973. Therefore it is clear that the penalty has been levied in this case under section 5 (1) (aa) of the Act without any finding based on adequate materials available on record to support the finding. This point of the appellant is therefore accepted. In the result, the penalty of Rs. 5,000 levied under section 5 (1) (aa) of the Act is set aside and the penalty of Rs. 5,000 levied under section 5 (1) (c) of the Act is confirmed and the appeal is allowed in part accordingly. The period of 15 days specified in the order of the Assistant Director. Enforcement Directorate dated 30th June 1978 shall run from today. There will be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.