CHAMPAKLAL GANESHMAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Bombay under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution. The facts giving rise to the appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows:

(2.) On 4th October, 1968 at about 5 p. m. the appellant was found standing near the crossing of Yusuf Meherally Road and Abdul Rahman Street adjoining Crawford Market in Bombay. The movements of the appellant excited the suspicion of PSI Bhambre and Police Constable Vithal Bapu Kamble, who were passing along that way to make inquiries in connection with some other matter, and they accordingly accosted the appellant and asked him why he was standing there. The appellant replied that he was waiting for a friend. But that answer did not satisfy the police officers and suspecting that there was something fishy, they searched the appellant in the presence of panchas. In the course of the search two paper packets were found, one in each trouser pocket of the appellant and each packet contained ten brand new wrist-watches of Sandoz manufacture. These wrist-watches were quite expensive and their value came to over Rs. 2,000- The appellant was asked as to how he came into possession of these wrist-watches, but he was not in a position to give a satisfactory explanation. The Police officers, therefore, took the appellant to the police station and later charged him with an offence under Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate V. T., Bombay.

(3.) The learned Presidency Magistrate found on the evidence on record that there was reason to believe that the wrist-watches found from the possession of the appellant were either stolen property or property fraudulently obtained, and since the explanation given, by the appellant for his possession was inconsistent and unsatisfactory, the learned Presidency Magistrate held that the appellant was guilty and convicted him of the offence under Section 124 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days.