https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41520 In a prosecution under the Customs Act, the prosecution had to prove conscious possession of the seized car and the respondent's knowledge or reason to believe that it was liable to confiscation beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence was found insufficient: acquisition, possession or control of the vehicle was not proved, the brother-in-law's statement was partly hearsay, the driver was not examined, and the retracted confession was uncorroborated on material aspects. Mere suspicion could not replace proof, so the acquittal was sustained. Section 123 did not apply because vehicles were not notified goods, leaving the burden on the prosecution. en-us Tue, 19 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jun 2010 10:34:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41520 In a prosecution under the Customs Act, the prosecution had to prove conscious possession of the seized car and the respondent's knowledge or reason to believe that it was liable to confiscation beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence was found insufficient: acquisition, possession or control of the vehicle was not proved, the brother-in-law's statement was partly hearsay, the driver was not examined, and the retracted confession was uncorroborated on material aspects. Mere suspicion could not replace proof, so the acquittal was sustained. Section 123 did not apply because vehicles were not notified goods, leaving the burden on the prosecution. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 19 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41520