LAWS(BOM)-1979-3-30

NARAYAN TUKARAM KADAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On March 05, 1979
NARAYAN TUKARAM KADAM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application is directed against the order dated the 27th November 1978, passed by the Sessions Judge, Solapur, in appeal, in a proceeding under section 1 24 of the Bombay Police Act

(2.) According to the prosecution, the Applicant accused was found loitering on the road near State Transport bus stand in Pandharpur town, around 2-45 a.m. on the 20th October 1976. P. S. I. Budha- want (PW 1), who was on night Patrol duty found the movements of the accused suspicious, and therefore he made inquiries with him. Since the accused could not give satisfactory answers to the inquiries, the P. S. I. searched his person in the presence of two panchas. In the course of the search, the accused was found in possession of cash amounting to Rs. 43.500/ a small gold bar weighing 15 tolas, a post card and other sundry articles. The accused was therefter charge sheets for the offence under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act ( hereinafter referred -to as the said Act, )

(3.) At the trial, the prosecution examined the P. S. I. and one of the panchas by name Falke. The accused pleaded not guilty and examined his brother Atmaram in support of his case that the cash amount belonged to the seven brothers of the accused; that the seven brothers owned agriculturallands, to the extent of about 175 acres; and that the amount represented the profits of the agricultural lands. It was also tried to be shown by the defence that the gold bar belonged to the accused's mother and that he had gone to Raniganj where his brother Shankar was staying, for the purpose of purchasing a tractor, if possible, after collecting the contribution from the said Shankar. This defence put forward by the accused was negatived by the trial Court. The trial Court, on the other hand, accepted the evidence of the prosecution and convicted the accused for the offence under the said section and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/. He also passed the necessary default sentence of one month.