CHAMPAKLAL GANESHMAL versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 584 · Decided: 05-11-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

584 
CHAMPAKLAL GANESHMAL 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
November 5, 1974 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND P. N, BHAGWATI, JJ.] 
Bombay Police ·Act, 1951-S. 124-Scope of-"Stokm property'' or "pro· 
perty fraud11/e111ly obtaine,d" mea11f/1g of. 
, 
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for an offence under s. 124 of 
the Bombay Police Act, 19·5 l for being in possession of 20 brand new wrist 
watches of Sandoz manufacture. The Presidency Magistrate found that the 
wrist watches were 
either stolen property or property fraudulently obtained. 
On apptal a single Judge of the High Court held that the writ watches were 
smuggled property and heqi;ie fraudulently obtained and confirmed the con· 
viction and sentences. 
On rc:ference, a Division bench held that if the pro· 
perty in the possession of the accused was capable of being described as 'stolen 
property or property fraudulently obtaine\[' by whornso:.ier it might have been 
stolen or fraudulently obtained, that would be sufficient to comply with the 
requirements of the section and tha tthe section did not speak of the accused 
obtafning p<mession of the property fraudulently but property "fraudulently 
obtained." 
, 
Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act enacts- "whoever has in his possession 
or conveys in any manner, or offers for sale or pawn, anything which there is 
reason to beJ:eve is stolen property or property ·fraudulently obtained, shall, 
if he fails to account for sucl:i, possession or to act to the satisfaction of the 
Magistrate" te punishable on oonviction. 
Disn1issiug the appeal, 
HELP : (I) When a11ything is imported into the country clandestinely in 
violation of import or customs regulations it is fraudulently obtained, that is 
obtained by committing a fraud on the regulations. Smuggled goods are clearly 
goods fra.uduJently obtained. [587Fl 
( 2) The plain language of the section stops short at describing tho property 
as 'stolen property' or 'prop1~rty fraudulently obtained' and does not go on 
t,o add the words 'by him'. If the property were stolen or fraudulently ob· 
tained by the accused, that would be a distinct and independent offence under 
the Indian Penal Code or other laws and it would not be necessary to make 
it an offence over again under s. 124 of the Bombay Police Act. If the pro-
perty is capable of being 'described as 'stolen property' or 'property fraudu-
lently obtained' by whomsoever it might have been stolen or fraudulenlly ob· 
tained. that would be sufficient to comply with the requirements of the section. 
It is the possession by the accused of property which bears the attribute or 
characteristic 
of 'stolen pto;1erty' or 'property fraudulently obtained', that is 
made penal. 
[587G-588C] 
(3) The explanation given by the appellant for his possession of the wrist 
watches was unsatisfactory and the High Court was right in taking the view 
that the appellant had failed to account for the possession of wrist watches. 
[588E] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRrsorcTION : Criminal appeal No. 41 
of 1971. 
· 
From the Judgment and Order dated the 15th January, 1971 of 
the Bombay High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 1969. 
N. H. Hingorarii, for the appellant. 
S. B. Wad and M. N. Shroff, for the respondent. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
CHAMPAKLAL v. MAHARASHTRA (Bhagwal!, /.) 
585 
: . The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BHAGWATI, J.-This appeal has been preferred by the appellant 
on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Bombay under 
Article 134(1) (c) of the ~nstitution. The facts giving rise to the 
appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows. 
B 
On 4th October 1968 at about 5 p.m. the appellant was found 
standing near ·the crossing of Yusuf Meherally Road and 
Abdul 
!Rahman Street adjoining Crawford Market in Bombay. The move-
ments of the appellant excited the suspicion of PSI Bhambre and 
Police Constable Vithal Bapu Kamble, who were JJUSsing along that 
way to make inquiries in, connection with some other matter, and 
they accordingly accosted the appellant and asked him why he was 
C . standing there. 
The appellant replied that he was waiting 
for a 
. friend. 
But that answer did not satisfy the police officers and sus-
pecting that there was something fishy, they searched the appellant 
· in the presence of panchas. 
In the course of the search two paper 
packets were found, one in each trouser pocket of the appellant and 
each packet contained ten brand new wrist-watches of Sandoz manllt' 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.