Knowledge and possession must be proved for concealed gold offences; conviction failed for lack of legal evidence.

Conviction under the Gold Control Act and Customs Act could not stand because the prosecution failed to produce legal evidence proving the appellant's possession of, or knowledge about, the concealed gold articles. Although the gold was recovered from a pit in the compound of the appellant's house, the appellant immediately denied knowledge or possession, and a third party's later statement admitting concealment in the compound did not establish the appellant's awareness or consent. No prior collusion or conspiracy between the appellant and the third party was proved, so the essential ingredients of the offences remained unproved and the conviction was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's conviction under Section 85(ii) of the Gold Control Act and Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act could be sustained in the absence of legal evidence proving possession or knowledge of the concealed gold articles.

Analysis: The gold articles were recovered from a pit in the compound of the appellant's house, but the appellant had immediately denied knowledge or possession. The subsequent statement of a third party admitting concealment of the articles in the compound did not establish that the appellant knew of the concealment or had consented to it. No prior collusion or conspiracy between the appellant and the third party was proved, and the prosecution failed to adduce legal evidence establishing the necessary ingredients of the offences.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained and was set aside.

---