BALKRISHNA MAHADEO DHARKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The pet it inner seeks to challenge his conviction recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nasik Road, under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act. The petitioner is as is evident from the record, a dealer in scrap-metals and also a dealer in dew hardware goods. The present prosecution against him was launched on the ground that he was in possession of five piees of lead pipes on 24 August, 1. 74 when his shop was searched by the police during the investigaion an altogether different crime. According to the prosecution these five pieces of lead pipes were stolen property or could be reasonably suspected to be stolen property and tbe accused was not in a position to explain his possession of the same;

(2.) The accused defended himself by contending that the lead pipes have been purchased from a person whose identity he could not establish and the said purchase has been made during the normal course of his business. The learned trial Magistrate refused to accept the explanation given by the accused and proceeded to convict him of the offence with which he was charged and to sentence him to a fine of Rs. 50/- in default of payment of fine, 7 days, RI was stipulated. This order of conviction and sentence is dated 15th February, 1978 and is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

(3.) Mr. Chitnis, the learned Advocate appear for the petitioner had no difficult in showing the illegality of the conviction in this case. If the evidence shows that the petitioner was a dealer in scrap metals and other hardwere goods and if he gives an explanation which is not implausible that he has purchased the same during the normal course of his businss there is no reason why that explanation should be rejected. Apart from this Mr. Chitnis contended, that the property such as the lead pipe which is in possession of a person carrying on a trade as the petitioner is doing cannot prima facie be said to be a stolen Property. Admittedly in the instant case there is no complaint from any quarter that the lead pipes have been stolen in or around the Nasik Road.Considering both these facts it is impossible to sustain the conviction which could only be based upon a reasonable belief that property in possession of the petitioner was a stolen property.