https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41636 Interference with an acquittal is justified only when the trial court's view is illegal, perverse, or manifestly unreasonable; where two reasonable views are possible, the appellate court will not substitute its own and the acquittal stands. For a conviction under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, the prosecution must prove conscious possession or dealing with goods knowing, or having reason to believe, that they were liable to confiscation; uncorroborated confession evidence and mere suspicion are insufficient. The presumption under Section 123 did not apply to the seized vehicle because it was not shown to fall within the notified class of goods. The acquittal was left undisturbed. en-us Tue, 19 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:44:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41636 Interference with an acquittal is justified only when the trial court's view is illegal, perverse, or manifestly unreasonable; where two reasonable views are possible, the appellate court will not substitute its own and the acquittal stands. For a conviction under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, the prosecution must prove conscious possession or dealing with goods knowing, or having reason to believe, that they were liable to confiscation; uncorroborated confession evidence and mere suspicion are insufficient. The presumption under Section 123 did not apply to the seized vehicle because it was not shown to fall within the notified class of goods. The acquittal was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 19 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41636