Proof of foreign import is essential in import-control offences; mere possession of prohibited goods within India is not enough.

In a prosecution for unlawful import, the prosecution had to prove that the prohibited goods were brought into India from outside India; mere recovery of the articles and linkage to the accused within India was insufficient. Because no evidence showed that the ship had come directly from a foreign port or otherwise established foreign-origin import, the essential ingredient of the import-control offence was not proved. The charge under Section 5 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act therefore failed, and the connected conspiracy charge also could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved that the prohibited articles were brought into India from outside India so as to establish the offence under Section 5 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act and the connected charge of conspiracy.

Analysis: The evidence accepted by the Court showed that the suitcase contained whisky, brandy and synthetic stones and that the appellants were connected with the suitcase. However, to sustain liability under the import-control offence, the prosecution had to prove that the articles were being brought into India from outside India. That essential link depended on proof that the ship had come straight from a foreign port or otherwise that the goods had been imported from outside India. No such evidence was adduced, and the absence of proof on this material element was fatal to the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The offence under Section 5 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act was not proved against either appellant, and the connected conspiracy charge also failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for unlawful import, the prosecution must prove that the goods were brought into India from outside India; proof of possession or recovery within India alone is insufficient to establish the offence.

---