Conscious possession of smuggled goods requires proof beyond mere presence in the vehicle; acquittal stands where evidence is insufficient.

Mere presence in a vehicle carrying smuggled gold concealed in secret cavities did not establish conscious possession, knowledge of concealment, or participation in the offence. The evidence did not show that the respondents knew, or had reason to believe, that the gold was being transported illegally, and no incriminating articles were recovered from their persons or belongings. The statutory presumption under the Customs Act could not be invoked without proof of possession, and there was no reliable basis to treat one respondent as an aider or abettor. In an appeal against acquittal, interference was unwarranted because the trial court's view was not unreasonable, so the acquittal stood.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were proved to be in conscious possession of the smuggled gold or otherwise concerned in carrying it so as to attract the charges, and whether the acquittal recorded by the Magistrate called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: The respondents were travelling in the car in which gold was found concealed in secret cavities, but the evidence did not establish that they knew of the concealment or had reason to believe that Kabir was transporting smuggled gold. No incriminating articles were recovered from their persons or belongings, and the prosecution case itself showed that the gold was secreted by Kabir. The Court held that mere presence in the car was insufficient to infer conscious possession or participation, that the statutory presumption under the Customs Act could not be invoked without proof of possession, and that there was no reliable basis to hold respondent 6 liable as an aider or abettor. As the matter was an appeal against acquittal, interference was unwarranted unless the trial court view was unreasonable.

Conclusion: The charges were not proved against the respondents, and the acquittal was not liable to be disturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for smuggled goods, mere presence in a vehicle where contraband is concealed does not establish conscious possession or guilt unless knowledge or reason to believe, and the requisite participation in dealing with the goods, are proved; in an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only where the trial court's view is unreasonable.

---