Ratio(s) Decidendi-Conviction affirmed.

The petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Rule 126-P (2)(ii) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Rules, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. He has further been convicted for an offence under section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 90 days. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum. In this revision, the petitioner challenges the legality and correctness of the said conviction and sentence passed on him.

2. The prosecution case is that on 27th May, 1965 P.W.1 Karni, the Inspector of Excise, Belgaum, noticed the accused sitting in a compartment of Poona-Bangalore Mail train at about 11-30 hours. As he suspected that the accused was carrying soma contraband goods, he quested the accused and thereafter he touched the body of the accused and on the right side of the leg he found something hard below the knee joint underneath the pant of the petitioner. P.W.1 detained the petitioner and informed P.W. 2 the Superintendent of Central Excise. When the petitioner was searched in the presence of the panchayatdars, it was noticed that he was having a bandage tied up below his right knee; inside this bandage there was a kaki coloured belt and inside this belt there were four pallets of gold with foreign markings. These gold pallets were seized under the panchanama Exhibit P-8. Thereafter the statement of the accused as per Exhibit P-9 was recorded. After getting the necessary sanction and consent to prosecute the petitioner, a complaint was filed against him.

3. Sri Mandagi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. He has challenged the correctness of the conviction of the petitioner for the offence of contravening Rule 126-P(2)(ii) of the Rules. The contention of Sri Mandagi is that acquisition of gold is different from mere possession of gold. It is argued that a person can be in possession of the gold without acquiring the same and that possession does not necessarily mean acquisition. It is contended that the accused is charged for possession of gold without a permit and permit is required only for acquisition of gold and not for possession. The argument is that the petitioner if at all could have been convicted for contravening Rule 126-P(2)(iv) of the Rules and not for contravening Rule 126-P(2) (ii) of the Rules. Mere possession of gold is not an offence under the Rules and that a permit is required only if a person buys or acquires gold. For a declaration to be made under sub-clause (5) of Rule 126-I, thirty days time is given. In the instant case the period of thirty days has not elapsed. It is therefore argued that the conviction of the petitioner for contravening Rule 126-P (2) (ii) of the Rules is not correct. In support of his contention, strong reliance has been placed on the decision in M. Kuppaswami Chettiar v. State1. In the said decision it has been pointed out that the word “acquire” means, to gain or get as one's own or to become the owner of the property. In that case, as the accused was only a carrier of gold, the Court set aside his conviction for contravention of Rule 126-P(2) (iv) and (vi) of the Rules.

4. The learned Central Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, has contended that the Madras decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner itself points out that if a person is found merely in possession of gold he contravenes Rule 126-1, subclause (10) unless he makes a declaration. If no such declaration is made by that person even though he may be a carrier of gold he would be contravening Rule 126-P (2) (ii) of the Rules. It is also pointed ou