Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(J. R. Vimadalal J.)
PRATAP B. BHOSALE (Accused) - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - Respondent
Advocates appeared
For appellant-accused-Mrs. F. H. Ponda.
For State- V. T. Gambhirwala, Asstt. Govt. Pleader.
BOMBAY POLICE ACT, 1951 - SECTION 124 - POSSESSION OF STOLEN OR FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED PROPERTY - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF FRAUDULENT OBTAINING - MERE POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED PROPERTY INSUFFICIENT.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, for possession of four gold biscuits and Rs. 3,500 in cash, which the prosecution alleged were stolen or fraudulently obtained property. The accused denied possession of the gold biscuits and claimed that the cash was savings collected for the purpose of purchasing a flat.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had fraudulently obtained the property. The court held that mere possession of the property, even if it was of a prohibited nature, was not sufficient to prove that the accused had obtained it fraudulently. The court also held that the prosecution had failed to show that the accused had practiced any deceit in acquiring the property.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved that the accused had fraudulently obtained the property. 2. Whether mere possession of prohibited property was sufficient to prove fraudulent obtaining.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had fraudulently obtained the property. The court held that mere possession of the property, even if it was of a prohibited nature, was not sufficient to prove that the accused had obtained it fraudulently. The court also held that the prosecution had failed to show that the accused had practiced any deceit in acquiring the property.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the return of the Rs. 3,500 seized by the police.
"124. Whoever has in his possession or conveys in any manner. or offers for sale or pawn, anything which there is reason to believe is stolen property or property fraudulently obtained, shall, if he fails to account for such possession or to act to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees or with both."
The facts necessary for the purpose of disposing of the present appeal are that on September 4, 1967 a complaint had been filed by one Manekchand that he had been cheated by some persons, while he was on the way to purchase utensils with a large amount of cash and the cash was taken away from him. It was in connection with that offence that the accused in the present case was arrested by Sub-Inspector Dabholkar on the morning of September 7, 1967. The prosecution case is that shortly after his arrest the accused mane a statement leading to the recovery of 4 gold biscuits and an amount of Rs. 3,500 in cash from the house of the accuseds father-in-law, which statement has been admitted in evidence under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution story is that after having made that statement, the accused led the police party and the panchas to his father-in-laws flat in Sitaram Building at Crawford Market, took out a key from the pocket of a trouser hanging on a nail, opened a tin box with that key and took out from it a plastic bag from which the accused produced 4 gold biscuits with foreign markings and a sum of Rs. 3,500 in Government Currency notes. After investigation was completed, the accused was charged under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, with the offence of having been found in possession of the said 4 gold biscuits and the cash of Rs. 3,500 "which there is reason to believe is stolen property fraudulently obtained," and had thereby committed an offence under the said section.
2. accused.
The fact of the recovery of the four gold biscuits is disputed by the According to him, a sum of Rs. 3,500 in cash was recovered from his father-in-laws flat at his instance, but he has stoutly denied that any gold biscuits were recovered along with the currency notes. In course of the hearing of this appeal before me, Mrs. Ponda pointed out what, according to her, were the infirmities in the evidence relating to the alleged recovery of the four gold biscuits. She has relied on the fact that while the signatures of the panchas were taken on the currency notes, their signatures were not taken either on the gold biscuits, or any piece of paper attached to them, or on the packet in which the gold pieces were alleged to have been wrapped according to Sub-Inspector Dabholkar himself. She has also pointed out that the panch witness who has been examined has in his statement denied having put his signature even on the currency notes. She has pointed out that the gold pieces have not been exhibited in this case and has further submitted that there is no reason why the evidence of R.J. Jadhav, the father-in-law of the accused, who was examined, as a defence witness, should not have been accepted by the Court. I do not think any of these grounds are sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of the panch witness and the Police Officer in regard to the recovery of the four gold biscuits at the instance of the accused from the house of his father-in-law. The mere negative fact that the signature of the panchas was not taken on the paper in which the gold pieces were wrapped is, in my opinion, not suffic
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
