ABDUL KADAR ABDUL REHMAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application is directed against the order dated 30 th June 1978, passed by the iearned Sessions Judge, Nasik. in Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 1877 which was filed by the present petitioner accused No, 1 against his order of conviction and sentence dated 19th August 1977. passed by the learned Judicial Magisrate, First Class, Malegoan, in Summary Case No. 587 of 1975.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, has been that one Ramesh Dagadu Sonar was arrested on 25-1 - 1975 by the Maiegaon Police in Crime No. 3 of 1975 under Section 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code In the course of his interrogation, the police came to know that original accused Nos. 2 and 3 (the present petitioner being accused No 1) possessed stolen articles and sold some of them to the present petitioner. Thereafter on search of the petitioner, he was found in posseion of certain dhoties, pant pieces and shirt pieces altogether valued at Rs. 4000/- and odd. All the three accused persons Nos. 1, 3 were charged for having committed an offence punishable under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act. Accused No. 1 denied the prosecution allegations that he purchased goods from accused No. 2 and 3. His defence was that he deals in selling cloth at Malegaon after purchasing the same from Bombay market. According to him, the property in question belongs to him and he was not guilty of any offence. Accused Nos 2 and 3 also denied the prosecution allegations. Their defence was of total denial They had not committed any theft nor had they conveyed any property to accused No. 1.

(3.) The learned trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove that accused No 2 and 3 had by fraudulent means obtained involved property and had conveyed the said stolen property to accused No. 1. Consequently, accused Nos 2 at d 3 were held to be not guilty of any offence punishable under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act. The learned trial Magistrate, however, and rather surprisingly, found that though the story of the prosecution that it was accused No. 2 and 3 who had sold to accused No. 1 stolen property. was not established, accused No. 1 was nevertheless guilty of the offence punishable under Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act for being found in possession of stolen property. In the result, the learned trial Magistrate acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3 but convicted accused No. 1 and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- In default to suffer further R. I for 15 days. This conviction and sentence was challenged by accused No. 1 by preferring an appeal to ihe Sessions Court The learned Sessions Judge was, however, pleased by his order dated 30th June 1 978 to dismiss the said appeal Hence, this Revision Application to this Court by accused No. 1.