Possession of foreign-marked gold may sustain smuggling presumption, but mere carriage is not acquisition under gold-control rules.

Foreign-marked gold concealed on the petitioner's person, coupled with his admission that he carried it for another, sustained the statutory presumption that the goods were smuggled and confirmed the conviction under the Customs Act. By contrast, "acquire" under the Defence of India Rules was construed to mean obtaining ownership or a proprietary interest, not mere physical carriage or custody. As the petitioner was only a carrier, the requirement of acquisition was not met, so the conviction and sentence under the gold-control provisions were set aside and he was acquitted of that offence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction under Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act was sustainable on the facts proved. (ii) Whether mere carriage and possession of gold as a carrier amounted to "acquiring" gold so as to attract Rule 126-H(2)(d) read with Rule 126-P(2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction under Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act was sustainable on the facts proved.

Analysis: The gold seized from the petitioner bore foreign markings and was found concealed on his person. The petitioner had admitted the seizure and had also made statements acknowledging that he was carrying the gold at the instance of another person. In the circumstances, the statutory presumption applicable to smuggled goods was not displaced, and the finding that the gold had been imported into India from outside India was upheld.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act was confirmed.

Issue (ii): Whether mere carriage and possession of gold as a carrier amounted to "acquiring" gold so as to attract Rule 126-H(2)(d) read with Rule 126-P(2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962.

Analysis: The term "acquire" was construed to mean obtaining ownership or an interest in the property, not merely physical custody. A person who only carries gold for hire may be in possession of it, but does not thereby acquire it within the meaning of the rule. Since the petitioner was found only to be a carrier, the offence requiring acquisition was not made out. Mere possession would have attracted a different provision, but that was not the basis of conviction here.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Rule 126-H(2)(d) read with Rule 126-P(2)(iv) and (vi) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 were set aside and the petitioner was acquitted of that offence.

Final Conclusion: The judgment sustained the customs conviction, but set aside the gold-control conviction on the ground that carriage without acquisition did not satisfy the relevant prohibition, resulting in a modified sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere possession or carriage of gold does not amount to "acquisition" unless the person obtains ownership or a proprietary interest in the gold.

---