Judgment :- The Order of the Court is as follows :- This petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition, and the Order of the Lower Courts, and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. P. Kadirvel for Mr. S. Ganesan Advocate for the petitioner and Respondent not appearing in person or by Advocate, the Court made the following order :- This criminal revision case is filed by the accused. He has been convicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act and sentenced to one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six weeks. And this conviction and sentence has been confirmed in the appeal by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai. 2.The case against the accused is that on information, P.W.I. the Superintendent of Central Excise on 19-10-1988 at 6.30 A.M. went to the house of the accused and there he found 30 gunny bags of foreign cloths. The accused was not there. He took a statement from his wife and seized the goods. Later the accused appeared before the Customs Officer on 22-10-1988. According to the prosecution, the accused has kept these foreign goods without permit. The accused was knowingly involved in keeping and concealing the said 30 bags of foreign goods knowing that they were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 On the appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, the learned trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty and therefore he convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. The said conviction and sentence were confirmed by the appellate Court.It is now contended in the criminal revision case that the contraband viz. 30 gunny bags of goods were brought by the accused's cousin one Murugan in a Van along with two others, that he kept them in his house, that he was not aware of what the gunny bags contained, and that he had nothing to do with them. But this version of the accused cannot be believed because when as many as 30 gunny bags of goods were brought to his house, certainly he would have known what they contained. Even without asking the nature of the goods, he would not have allowed them to be kept in his house. But this version of the accused cannot be believed because when as many as 30 gunny bags of goods were brought to his house, certainly he would have known what they contained. Even without asking the nature of the goods, he would not have allowed them to be kept in his house. Therefore, the case of the accused that he was not aware of the contents of the gunny bags cannot be accepted. Hence, it is clear that he was aware that foreign goods had been brought to his house. As pointed out by the Court below, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to show that there was any permit in respect of the said foreign goods, or any duty had been paid for them. The accused should have known that they are liable for confiscation. In these circumstances, under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, even keeping any foreign goods by any person which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation shall be punishable. Therefore, rightly the trial Court has convicted and sentenced him and the appellate Court has confirmed the same. I do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the said conviction and sentence. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed.