https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165922 In a prosecution under the Gold (Control) Act, the statutory presumptions under Sections 98B and 99 arise only after the prosecution first proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had possession, custody or control of the primary gold. The evidence showed tenancy of the flat, but not satisfactory proof that the accused used the bedroom, controlled the almirah, or was the head of the family; those links could not be inferred by conjecture. Because the foundational fact was not established, the presumptions could not be invoked and the conviction under Section 85(i)(ii) was unsustainable, entitling the accused to acquittal. en-us Thu, 23 Aug 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:13:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165922 In a prosecution under the Gold (Control) Act, the statutory presumptions under Sections 98B and 99 arise only after the prosecution first proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had possession, custody or control of the primary gold. The evidence showed tenancy of the flat, but not satisfactory proof that the accused used the bedroom, controlled the almirah, or was the head of the family; those links could not be inferred by conjecture. Because the foundational fact was not established, the presumptions could not be invoked and the conviction under Section 85(i)(ii) was unsustainable, entitling the accused to acquittal. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 23 Aug 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165922