Statutory presumptions in customs cases can sustain conviction when possession of prohibited foreign-origin goods is unexplained.

In a customs prosecution involving possession of foreign-origin prohibited goods, once possession and the prohibited character of the goods are established, the burden shifts to the accused to explain lawful possession. The High Court held that the trial court erred in requiring direct proof of the exact manner of smuggling and in ignoring the statutory presumptions arising from import control law and the rule relating to special knowledge under the Evidence Act. As the accused's invoice was found bogus and possession was admitted, the acquittal was unsustainable and was set aside; the accused was held liable to conviction and punishment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal for possession of foreign-origin prohibited goods under the Customs Act called for interference, and whether the accused had satisfactorily accounted for possession so as to rebut the statutory presumption.

Analysis: The accused's possession and seizure of the table-tennis balls were admitted, and the invoice relied on by him was found to be bogus. The goods were held to be covered by import control restrictions and therefore treated as prohibited goods. In such a prosecution, once possession of banned or prohibited goods is shown, the burden shifts to the possessor to explain lawful possession. The Court held that the trial court erred in insisting on direct proof of actual smuggling and in ignoring the statutory presumptions arising from the import control law and the rule of special knowledge under the Evidence Act.

Conclusion: The acquittal was unsustainable and was interfered with; the accused was held guilty and liable to punishment.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution succeeded on the footing that unexplained possession of prohibited foreign-origin goods attracted the statutory presumptions, and the order of acquittal was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In a customs prosecution involving possession of prohibited or foreign-origin goods, once possession and the prohibited character of the goods are established, the burden shifts to the accused to explain lawful possession, and failure to do so can justify conviction without direct proof of the exact manner of smuggling.

---