https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45652 Circumstantial evidence supported only a limited chain of facts: declaration of unaccompanied baggage, later arrival of baggage consigned to the respondent, a telegram delivered at his residence, and contraband found in one case. Those facts did not exclude the reasonable hypothesis that the foreign consignor placed the contraband in the baggage without the respondent's knowledge. For the customs offence, the evidence did not establish the requisite knowledge or intention. For the import-control offences, the prosecution also failed to prove that the respondent himself brought the goods into India. The acquittal was therefore justified and remained undisturbed. en-us Wed, 01 Jul 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:46:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45652 Circumstantial evidence supported only a limited chain of facts: declaration of unaccompanied baggage, later arrival of baggage consigned to the respondent, a telegram delivered at his residence, and contraband found in one case. Those facts did not exclude the reasonable hypothesis that the foreign consignor placed the contraband in the baggage without the respondent's knowledge. For the customs offence, the evidence did not establish the requisite knowledge or intention. For the import-control offences, the prosecution also failed to prove that the respondent himself brought the goods into India. The acquittal was therefore justified and remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 01 Jul 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45652