This brio~ us back to the first and the main contention on behalf of the appellant which was that there is no evidence to support the conviction of the appellant ounder sec.:tion 135 (b) of the Act. We are unable to ac1;ept this submission. A reference to lssardas Dau/at Ram & Ors. v. Ui'lion of India & Ors.,('1 ) is enough to show that the conduct. of the accused and the incredible version set up by him were enough to saddle the accused with the necessary knowledge of the characte{ of the goods fou_nd in his possession. In the case before us, we have lfot only evidence of the suspicious· conduct of the appellant but his own admission tha.t he knew that it was an offence to carry tho gold which he hid,been asked to transport for payment of money to him. He bad put forward An incredible story of having been entru1.ted with so much gold by one Pannalal whose Identity was not estab· lishe.d and whose address was not revealed by the appellant, Ac1rd ing to the a1n>ellant, Pannalal had just met him by chance. It is in· credible that 111ny person would entrust gold valued at about Rs. 40,000 ori which Rs. 17,000 was payable as duty alone, to a youngster who was an utter stranger to him even if the carrier was to get Rs. ll 00 for the risky undertaking. rt is significant that the appellant was found carrying gold from Bombay, a port of entry for smuggled goods, to Delhi, where there is a good market for gold. If it was not recently smuggled gold carried contrary to law there was no need for the clandestine and guilty manner of transportins it. We think that, in the circumstance of the case, an inference could very well be made that the gold munt have been recently imported into the country, or, at any rnte, after the law passed in 1948 restricting its entry, The appcl· !ant admitted, in his statement under Section 108 of the Act, that transporting of these pieces of gold was an offence. If the gold bad
