CHAMPALAL GANESHMAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal comes before us on a reference by Kamat J. The appellant Champalal Ganeshmal had been convicted by the learned Presidency Magistrate, First Additional Court, V.T., Bombay, under Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 100.

(2.) THE brief facts in the case are that on October 4, 1960, at about 5 p.m., the appellant was seen standing near the crossing of Yusuf Meherally Road and Abdul Rahman Street near Crawford Market. P.S.I. Bhambre accompanied by Police Constable Vithal Bapu Kamble (P. W. I.) was passing that way to make certain inquires. The movements of the appellant -accused excited their suspicion, and so they accosted him and asked him why he was standing there. The appellant stated that he was waiting for a friend. That did not satisfy the officers and so the appellant was searched in the presence of panchas. In the course of the search, two paper -packets were found in both the trouser -pockets of the appellant and each packet contained 10 brand -new wrist -watches of Sandoz make. The value of these watches was more than Rs. 2,000. Asked how he came in possession of these watches, the appellant could not give a satisfactory explanation. He was, therefore, taken to the Police Station and later charged under Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

(3.) THE appellant appealed against the order of conviction and sentence, and the appeal came, in the first instance, before Kamat J. The learned Judge also held that there was reason to believe that the watches being smuggled articles were property fraudulently obtained, and since there was no satisfactory explanation, the conviction was proper. In the course of the arguments, however, his attention was drawn to a recent decision of this Court in Pratap Baburao v. The State : (1970)72BOMLR411 , and it was contended before him that under Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, the finding should be that there was reason to believe that the property in question was fraudulently obtained by the accused. Where that is not the finding of the Magistrate, the conviction was improper. That judgment was given by Mr. Justice Vimadalal sitting singly. It appears that Kamat J. thought that the decision required consideration by a Division Bench, and hence the reference.