Home >> Current Issues
Volume No - 15 Issue No - 3
The state no doubt has led evidence to show that the goods seized bore the labels of the appellantâ€™s firm and further that no transport licence was available. However, this per se does not establish illicit possession of forest produce within his knowledge. For a court to so conclude, the prosecution had to, in addition, prove beyond reasonable doubt, the foundational fact that the accused had knowingly removed the forest produce illicitly. It is here, that the presumption under Section 69 cannot apply; it merely directs a presumption that the forest produce belongs to the government.