https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40601 A conviction for a possession-based customs offence cannot stand unless the prosecution proves, by admissible substantive evidence, that the accused had possession or control of the premises or contraband. Here, the evidence did not establish that the revision petitioner was in possession of the house from which the goods were seized, and the prosecution witnesses did not support exclusive possession by him. The witness on possession stated that the owner was in possession on the relevant date, and the co-accused's statement was not substantive evidence against the petitioner. In the absence of proof of possession or control, the inference of concealment of smuggled goods failed and the conviction and sentence were set aside. en-us Mon, 03 Oct 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 May 2010 17:20:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40601 A conviction for a possession-based customs offence cannot stand unless the prosecution proves, by admissible substantive evidence, that the accused had possession or control of the premises or contraband. Here, the evidence did not establish that the revision petitioner was in possession of the house from which the goods were seized, and the prosecution witnesses did not support exclusive possession by him. The witness on possession stated that the owner was in possession on the relevant date, and the co-accused's statement was not substantive evidence against the petitioner. In the absence of proof of possession or control, the inference of concealment of smuggled goods failed and the conviction and sentence were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 03 Oct 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40601