https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42306 In an appeal against acquittal concerning seized gold, the court reiterated that interference is not justified unless the prosecution case is proved by strong and reliable evidence. Exclusive possession was not established because the house was occupied by other inmates and the almirah key was held by another person, so the contraband could not be treated as being in the accused's exclusive possession. The prosecution also failed to prove that the gold was of foreign origin, as assay and mint reports were found insufficient and inconclusive and the seizure material was defective in relation to some items. The acquittal was therefore sustained because the essential ingredients of the offences were not proved. en-us Thu, 29 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:33:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42306 In an appeal against acquittal concerning seized gold, the court reiterated that interference is not justified unless the prosecution case is proved by strong and reliable evidence. Exclusive possession was not established because the house was occupied by other inmates and the almirah key was held by another person, so the contraband could not be treated as being in the accused's exclusive possession. The prosecution also failed to prove that the gold was of foreign origin, as assay and mint reports were found insufficient and inconclusive and the seizure material was defective in relation to some items. The acquittal was therefore sustained because the essential ingredients of the offences were not proved. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 29 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42306