Mool Chand Garg, J.

1. This second appeal raises the following questions of law:

(i) Whether the conviction of the appellant could have been based solely on the basis of retracted confession without there being any other corroborating evidence.

(ii) Once the retraction of a confessional statement takes place then who is to prove that the confession recorded was voluntary.

(iii) Whether the revision petition filed in this case was not within limitation.

(iv) Whether the penalty imposed upon the appellant is justified.

2. This appeal has been filed under section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act(hereinafter reffered to as FEMA) which superseeded Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as FERA)assailing the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the Foreign Exchange Appellate Tribunal holding the appellant guilty under section 9(1) (a) of FERA and imposing upon him a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs).

3. Section 9(1)(a) of FER A reads as under:

9. Restrictions on payments: (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 uncondition