Conscious possession requirement defeated where exclusive occupation and key possession were not proved, so acquittal was confirmed.

Conscious and exclusive possession must be proved by reliable evidence before foreign goods recovered from premises can sustain a customs conviction. The court found that the prosecution failed to show the room was in the accused's exclusive occupation, as the rent collector could not identify the occupant at the relevant time and the evidence indicated the presence of other domestic servants. The alleged production of a key was not recorded in the panchnama, and the key was not produced in court, weakening the prosecution case. On the totality of the evidence and probabilities, absence of conscious possession was upheld and the acquittal confirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused was in conscious and exclusive possession of the room from which foreign gold was recovered, so as to sustain conviction under the customs and defence rules.

Analysis: The evidence did not establish that the room was in the exclusive occupation of the accused. The rent collector could not say who occupied the room at the relevant time and his admissions indicated the presence of other domestic servants. The alleged production of the key by the accused was not reflected in the panchnama and the key was not produced in court, weakening the prosecution version. On the totality of the evidence and probabilities, the finding that conscious possession was not proved was supported by the record.

Conclusion: The finding of absence of conscious possession was upheld and the acquittal was confirmed.

---