Conscious possession in customs offences defeats interference with acquittal where the prosecution cannot prove knowledge or rely on an uncertain statutory presumption.

In an appeal against acquittal for customs offences, interference was declined because the prosecution did not prove conscious possession or knowledge of the contraband. The driver's act of turning back on seeing customs officers was insufficient by itself to establish guilty knowledge, and the defence explanation that the goods had been loaded in his absence was not shown to be implausible. The Court also treated the statutory presumption under the Customs Act as inapplicable or doubtful for a seizure relating to 1969, so the burden to prove possession and knowledge remained on the prosecution. The acquittal was therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the appellate court required interference in a prosecution for customs offences, and whether the statutory presumption under the Customs Act could be applied to shift the burden on the accused for goods seized in 1969.

Analysis: The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were not found sufficient to establish conscious possession or knowledge of the contraband on the part of the driver. The conduct of turning back on seeing customs officers was held incapable by itself of proving guilty knowledge, and the defence version that the goods had been loaded without the accused being present could not be rejected as wholly implausible. As the seizure related to 1969, the Court also treated the presumption provisions of section 123 and section 138A of the Customs Act as inapplicable or at least doubtful for that offence, with the result that the burden of proving conscious possession remained on the prosecution. The appellate court's view was held to be a reasonable one in an appeal against acquittal.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not disturbed and the prosecution appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms that, in the absence of reliable proof of conscious possession, a customs acquittal will not be interfered with merely because another inference is possible, particularly where the statutory presumption is not clearly attracted to the offence period.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is unwarranted where the view taken by the appellate court is a reasonable one and the prosecution has not proved conscious possession or knowledge of the contraband; statutory presumptions cannot be applied retrospectively unless clearly available for the relevant offence period.

---