https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168343 Possession of opium under Section 9(a) was construed as possession with knowledge, so mere physical custody without awareness would not by itself constitute the offence. Section 10 was held to raise a presumption once the prosecution proved that the accused was directly concerned with the opium or had physical custody of it, requiring the accused to rebut conscious possession on a preponderance of probability. On the facts, the accused had received delivery of the parcel and was in physical custody of the opium, but failed to establish bona fide ignorance or any exonerating circumstance. The conviction under Section 9(a) was therefore upheld because the statutory presumption was not displaced. en-us Fri, 04 May 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 08 Nov 2015 19:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168343 Possession of opium under Section 9(a) was construed as possession with knowledge, so mere physical custody without awareness would not by itself constitute the offence. Section 10 was held to raise a presumption once the prosecution proved that the accused was directly concerned with the opium or had physical custody of it, requiring the accused to rebut conscious possession on a preponderance of probability. On the facts, the accused had received delivery of the parcel and was in physical custody of the opium, but failed to establish bona fide ignorance or any exonerating circumstance. The conviction under Section 9(a) was therefore upheld because the statutory presumption was not displaced. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 04 May 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168343