Tatuba Laxman Vs. the State

the case debated over the conviction of the accused under section 124 of the bombay police act, 22 of 1951 for the possession of common article (tap), but there was no evidence to show that it was a stolen property- it was held that a tap being a common article the mere fact that it was in working condition would not justify an inference that it might not have been thrown away or lost- the conviction could not therefore be sustained. - order1. the accused tatuba laxman was charged with having committed an offence under section 124, bombay police act, 1951, in criminal case no. 106/p of 1955 in the court of the presidency magistrate, fifth court, dadar, bombay. the learned trial magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay a fine of rs. 10/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for five days. it was the case for the prosecution that on 23-10-1954 at about 12 noon the accused was found going in a suspicious manner along elphinstone road.the accused was stopped by the police naik no. 2606/f and was searched, and 'a tap and another piece' were found on the person of the accused. the accused took the police to an open place near the dhan mill compound and pointed out the place where he alleged he had found the articles. the police did not accept the explanation of the accused and, charge-sheeted him with having committed an offence under s. 124, bombay police act, 1951.2. now the tap found on the person of theaccused was a common article, and there wasno evidence to show that it was stolen properly.it is true that the tap was in working condition,but the mere fact that it was in working condition would not justify an inference that it maynot have been thrown away or lost. in my viewthe conviction of the accused cannot be sustained. the accused is therefore directed to be aq-quitted. fine, if paid, be refunded.revision allowed.