Conscious possession in contraband gold cases requires proof beyond mere recovery from shared family premises; acquittal upheld.

Recovery of contraband gold from an unlocked cupboard in a joint family house did not, by itself, establish possession or control against the respondent, even though the premises and business stood in the father's name. The Court held that criminal liability under the Customs Act and the Gold Control Act requires proof of conscious possession and guilty knowledge; mere presence of gold in shared premises is insufficient to raise a presumption against the karta or head of the family. The respondent's statements were not an admission of ownership, and the statutory presumptions under the Gold Control Act could not operate until possession, custody, or control was first proved. The acquittal was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved that the respondent had conscious possession or knowledge of the gold seized from a joint family house so as to sustain liability under Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 85 of the Gold Control Act, 1968.

Analysis: The gold was recovered from an unlocked cupboard in premises occupied by several family members, and the evidence showed that the house and business stood in the name of the respondent's father. The Court held that mere recovery of contraband from a house occupied by more than one person does not raise a presumption that the karta or head of the family is in possession or control of it. Criminal liability for such offences requires proof of conscious possession and guilty knowledge. The respondent's statements did not amount to an admission that the gold belonged to him, and the statutory presumptions under the Gold Control Act could not arise unless possession, custody, or control was first established.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove conscious possession or knowledge, and the acquittal was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions for contraband gold, recovery from a house shared by multiple occupants does not by itself establish possession or control against the karta or head of the family; the prosecution must prove conscious possession and guilty knowledge before criminal liability can attach.

---