https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193640 Recovery of contraband gold from an unlocked cupboard in a joint family house did not, by itself, establish possession or control against the respondent, even though the premises and business stood in the father's name. The Court held that criminal liability under the Customs Act and the Gold Control Act requires proof of conscious possession and guilty knowledge; mere presence of gold in shared premises is insufficient to raise a presumption against the karta or head of the family. The respondent's statements were not an admission of ownership, and the statutory presumptions under the Gold Control Act could not operate until possession, custody, or control was first proved. The acquittal was upheld and the appeal dismissed. en-us Wed, 16 Feb 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Nov 2017 10:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193640 Recovery of contraband gold from an unlocked cupboard in a joint family house did not, by itself, establish possession or control against the respondent, even though the premises and business stood in the father's name. The Court held that criminal liability under the Customs Act and the Gold Control Act requires proof of conscious possession and guilty knowledge; mere presence of gold in shared premises is insufficient to raise a presumption against the karta or head of the family. The respondent's statements were not an admission of ownership, and the statutory presumptions under the Gold Control Act could not operate until possession, custody, or control was first proved. The acquittal was upheld and the appeal dismissed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 16 Feb 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193640