Statutory presumption in customs cases requires proof that seized goods are gold before liability can be sustained.

Statutory presumption under the Customs Act could not be invoked unless the prosecution first proved by admissible evidence that the seized biscuits were gold, and the same foundational fact was required to sustain liability under the Gold (Control) Act. The goldsmith examined by the prosecution was not shown to have special study, training, or experience in assaying gold, so he was not established as an expert under the Evidence Act; his certificate could not cure the defect in oral evidence, and his opinion lacked the underlying tests or data. As the essential ingredient that the articles were gold was not proved, the acquittal stood justified and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved that the seized articles were gold so as to attract the statutory presumption and sustain conviction under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act; whether the evidence of the goldsmith was admissible and sufficient as expert evidence.

Analysis: The statutory presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act arises only after the prosecution establishes that the seized articles are in fact gold. The same foundational fact was necessary for an offence under Section 85(ii) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The witness examined as a goldsmith did not depose to any special study, experience, or training in assaying gold and therefore was not shown to be an expert within Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. His certificate could not be used to supplement deficient oral testimony, and his opinion was unsupported by the data or tests on which it was based. In the absence of admissible and reliable evidence proving that the biscuits were gold, the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredient of the offences.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the seized articles were gold and the expert evidence was inadmissible and insufficient; the acquittal was therefore justified and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The judgment confirms that statutory presumptions in customs matters cannot be invoked without first proving the primary fact by admissible evidence, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A customs presumption and liability under the Gold (Control) Act cannot arise unless the prosecution first proves by legally admissible evidence that the seized substance is gold, and opinion evidence is usable only when the witness is shown to be a true expert with disclosed basis of opinion.

---