Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a conviction under Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The appellant was found in possession of twenty brand new Sandoz wrist watches near Crawford Market in Bombay on 4 October 1968. Police officers, suspicious of his movements, searched him and recovered the watches from his trouser pockets, two paper packets of ten watches each. The watches were valued at over Rs. 2,000. The appellant could not give a satisfactory explanation for their possession. He was charged and tried before the Presidency Magistrate, V.T., Bombay, who held that there was reason to believe the watches were either stolen property or property fraudulently obtained, and since his explanation was unsatisfactory, convicted him and sentenced him to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 with default imprisonment of fifteen days. On appeal, a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Kamat J., agreed that the watches were smuggled property and hence fraudulently obtained, but because of a conflicting decision in Pratap Baburao v. State of Maharashtra by Vimadalal J., which required that the property must be fraudulently obtained by the accused, the appeal was referred to a Division Bench. The Division Bench of Palekar and S.K. Desai JJ. disagreed with Vimadalal J. and held that Section 124 does not require the property to have been fraudulently obtained by the accused; it is enough if the property bears the attribute of being stolen or fraudulently obtained. The Division Bench confirmed the conviction. The appellant obtained a certificate of fitness under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution and appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was the true interpretation of Section 124, specifically whether the words 'stolen property or property fraudulently obtained' require that the accused himself stole or fraudulently obtained the property, or whether the property merely needs to possess that character. The appellant argued that even if the watches were smuggled, they could not be said to be fraudulently obtained, and in any event there was no evidence that they were fraudulently obtained by him. The State argued that the watches were smuggled and therefore fraudulently obtained, and the section only requires the property to have that attribute. The Supreme Court, speaking through Bhagwati J., held that when anything is imported clandestinely in violation of import or customs regulations, it is fraudulently obtained because it is obtained by committing a fraud on the regulations. Smuggled goods are clearly goods fraudulently obtained. On the interpretation of the section, the Court noted that the plain language stops short at describing the property as 'stolen property or property fraudulently obtained' and does not add the words 'by him'. If the legislature intended that the accused himself must have stolen or fraudulently obtained the property, it would have been simple to say so. Moreover, if the property were stolen or fraudulently obtained by the accused, that would be a distinct and independent offence under the Indian Penal Code or customs laws, and it would be unnecessary to make it an offence again under Section 124. Therefore, the words describe the attribute or characteristic of the property; if the property is capable of being described as stolen or fraudulently obtained by whomsoever, that suffices. The Court also found that the circumstances—possession of twenty brand new foreign watches by a person not a dealer, concealed in trouser pockets, and inability to explain—gave reason to believe the watches were smuggled. The appellant's explanation was unsatisfactory, so he failed to account for possession as required by the third ingredient. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Offence of Possession of Stolen or Fraudulently Obtained Property - Interpretation of 'Stolen Property or Property Fraudulently Obtained' - Bombay Police Act, 1951, Section 124 - Section 124 penalizes possession of property that bears the attribute or characteristic of being stolen property or property fraudulently obtained, irrespective of who stole or fraudulently obtained it; the section does not require that the accused himself obtained the property fraudulently. The Supreme Court reasoned that if the property were stolen or fraudulently obtained by the accused, it would constitute a distinct offence under the Indian Penal Code, Customs Act, or Import and Export Control Act, making Section 124 redundant for that purpose. Held that the expression 'fraudulently obtained' denotes the character of the property, not the manner of the accused's acquisition. B) Criminal Law - Smuggled Goods as Property Fraudulently Obtained - Meaning of 'Fraudulently Obtained' - Bombay Police Act, 1951, Section 124 - Goods imported into India clandestinely in violation of import or customs regulations are obtained by committing a fraud on the regulations and therefore constitute property fraudulently obtained. The Court found that twenty brand new foreign wrist watches found in the possession of a person who was not a dealer and who could not explain their acquisition gave rise to a reasonable belief that they were smuggled. Held that smuggled goods are clearly goods fraudulently obtained within the meaning of Section 124. C) Criminal Law - Requirement to Account for Possession - Failure to Account - Bombay Police Act, 1951, Section 124 - The third ingredient of the offence requires that the accused fail to account for possession or act to the satisfaction of the Magistrate. The appellant's explanation for possessing the wrist watches was found inconsistent and unsatisfactory, and he was unable to state how he came into possession. Held that the failure to give a satisfactory account satisfied the third ingredient, and the conviction was confirmed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether under Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, the property in possession of the accused must be proved to have been stolen or fraudulently obtained by the accused himself, or whether it is sufficient that the property bears the attribute of being stolen or fraudulently obtained; and whether smuggled goods constitute property fraudulently obtained.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence under Section 124 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 confirmed.
Law Points
- Section 124 Bombay Police Act 1951 penalizes possession of stolen property or property fraudulently obtained
- smuggled goods are property fraudulently obtained
- the phrase does not require that the accused obtained the property fraudulently
- possession of property with such attribute is sufficient
- if accused himself stole or fraudulently obtained
- separate offence under IPC/Customs/Import Export Control Act
