But that answer did number satisfy the,officers and suspecting that there was something fishy, theythe appellant in the presence of panchas.
The appeal thereafter came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court companysisting of Palekar and S. K. Desai, JJ.
But the attention of the learned judge was drawn to a decision of another Single Judge of the High Court, namely, Vimadalal, J. in Pratap Baburao v. The State of Maharashtra 1 where a view had been taken that in order to attract the, applicability of section 124 what was necessary was that there should be reason to believe that the property in question was fraudulently obtained by the accused.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 15th January, 1971 of the Bombay High Court in Crl.
The Police officers, there.
fore, took the appellant to the police station and later charged him with an offence under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate V.T., Bombay.
The appellant was asked as to how he came into possession of these wristwatches, but he was number in a position to give a satisfactory explanation.
278 of 1969.
The appellant thereupon applied for a certificate for leave to appeal to this Court under Art.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal appeal No.
The learned Judge, however, found himself unable to agree with the view taken by Vimadalal, J., and being of the opinion that on a proper companystruction of section 124, the only matter in respect of which the Court was required to have reason to believe was that the property was stolen property or property fraudulently obtained and number that the property should have been stolen or fraudulently obtained by the ,accused, the learned Judge referred the appeal to a Division Bench.
Appeal No.
The appeal came up for hearing before a Single Judge of the High Court, namely, Kamat, J. The learned Judge was of the view that there was reason to believe that the wrist watches found in the possession of the appellant were smuggled property and hence property fraudulently obtained and since there was numbersatisfactory explanation forthcoming from the appellant, the order of companyviction and sentence passed against the appellant was proper.
B. Wad and M. N. Shroff, for the respondent.
41 of 1971.
The appellant replied that he was waiting for a friend.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, I. This appeal has been referred by the appellant on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Bombay under Article 134 1 c of the Constitution.
The facts giving rise to the appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows.
Now, if this decision were right, then obviously the appellant would be, entitled to be acquitted and the order of companyviction, and sentence passed against him would be bad because on the material on record it would number be possible to say that there was reason to believe that the wristwatches were fraudulently obtained by the appellant.
The appellant appealed against the order of companyviction and sentence to the High Court of Bombay.
H. Hingorani, for the appellant.
In the companyrse ofthe search two paper packets were found, one in each trouser pocketof the appellant and each packet companytained ten brand new wrist watches of Sandoz manufacture.
The movements of the appellant excited the suspicion of PSI Bhambre and Police Constable Vithal Bapu Kamble, who were passing along that way to make inquiries in companynection with some other matter, and they accordingly accosted the appellant and asked him why he was standing there.
134 1 c of the Constitution and since the case involved a question relating to the interpretation of section 124, the High Court granted the certificate and hence the present appeal.
On 4th October 1968 at about 5 p.m. the appellant was found standing near I the crossing of Yusuf Meherally Road and Abdul Rahman Street adjoining Crawford Market in Bombay.
