Suspicion is not proof in currency-note posting allegations; conviction failed for want of legal evidence linking the accused.

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was responsible for posting currency notes in envelopes for offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Sea Customs Act. The evidence showed only suspicion: the addresses on the envelopes were not shown to be in the petitioner's handwriting, no clinching circumstance linked him to the posting, and the possibility that another person had sent the money was not excluded. Moral certainty could not substitute for legal proof, so the conviction could not be sustained and the petitioner was entitled to acquittal; the challenge to the acquittal on the same facts also failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was responsible for posting currency notes in envelopes so as to establish offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Sea Customs Act.

Analysis: The available material showed only strong suspicion. There was no proof that the addresses on the envelopes were in the petitioner's handwriting, nor any clinching circumstance connecting him with the posting of the envelopes. The possibility that some other person might have sent the money was not excluded. Moral certainty could not replace legal proof, and the prosecution evidence did not establish guilt to the required standard.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained and the petitioner was entitled to acquittal. The challenge to the acquittal on the same facts also failed.

---