A dently, may infer that in all probability the goods in question, were smuggled goods, and the accused had t)le requisite guilty knowledge in respect thereof. The leading case is : lssardas Daulat Ram and Ors. v. The Union of Iudia & Ors.(') In that case, in reaching the conclusion that the gold had been smuggled, the Collector qf Customs considered the credibility of the story put forward by the appellant about B the purchase of the gold and also the conduct of the appellant in trying to get the gold melted so asi to reduce its fineness by mixing silver with it, in an attempt to approximate the resultant product to iicit gold found in the market. The ratio of this decision was followed by this Court· in Labhchand Dhanpat Singh Jain v. State of Maharashtra(2): The appellant-accused therein was trying to enter the Railway c compartment at Bombay Sl"ation. Seeing his nervousness, the Railway police questioned him and searched his person and recovered nine bars of gold with f,Olfeign markings. The accused put forward an incredible story with regard to the ·possession of the gold. . Tbis Court held, that in the circumstances of the, case, an inference, could very well D be drawn that the gold must have been imported after the law passed in 1948, restricting its entry; that the burden of proving an innocent · receipt of gold Jay upon the appellant under Sectiqn." 106, Evidence Act and that the totality of facts proved is enough to raise a presumption under Section 114, Evidence Act that the gold had been illegally imported into the country, so as to be cov~red by Section 111 ( d) of E the Customs Act.
