JUDGMENT - N.D. KAMAT, J.:---The appellant Abdul Jabbar Daki (original accused) has been convicted by the Learned Presidency Magistrate, 25th. Courts, Mazagoan, Bombay under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default to suffer R.I. for a further period of one month. On March, 1, 1972 at about 11-30 p.m. Lance Naik Yeshwant Patil of Nagpada Police Station, Bombay, receive information that some boys were committing theft of motor car parts at Madanpura. He immediately proceeded to that place ad found the accused and some other boys loitering. According to the prosecution, on March, 14, 1972 the accused made a statement that he had kept a motor car radio transistor with a dealer in scrap materials and offered to point out the shop of the dealer. He led the police and the panchas to the shop o (P.W. 1) Haroon Mohamed, who produced a car radio transistor. That radio transistor was taken carge of under a panchas and the accused Abdul Jabbar Abdul Daki was eventually prosecuted for an offence under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act. The accused denied the charge and pleaded not guilty. His defence was one of total denial. He also denied having made any statement before the Police and the panchas or having made any statement before the Police and the panchas or having pointed out the shop of (P.W. 1), Harron Mohamed or of any other dealer to the Police. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecutions and after taking into consideration the statement of the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offence with which he was charged. He, therefore, convicted the accused under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced him suffer R.I. for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default to suffer R.I. for one month. Being aggrieved by the conviction recorded and the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed by the learned trial Magistrate, the accused Abdul Jabbar Daki has come in appeal to this court. Mr. 100/- or in default to suffer R.I. for one month. Being aggrieved by the conviction recorded and the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed by the learned trial Magistrate, the accused Abdul Jabbar Daki has come in appeal to this court. Mr. Raje appearing for the appellant accused urged that even according to the prosecution, the accused Abdul Jabbar was not in actual possession of the car transistor radio at the time when he came to be arrested by Lance Naik Yeshwant Patil and he could not, therefore, be legally convicted under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act. According to Mr. Raje, a person can be convicted under this section if he is in possession or conveys in any manner, or offence for sale or pawns anything which there is reasons to believe is stolen property or property fraudulently obtained if he fails to account for such possession. Mr. Raje further urged that the evidence adduced by the prosecution against this client is also totally unworthy or any credence whatever. He pointed out that the accused Abdul Jabbar, who is a young boy, aged about 18 or 19 years was arrested by Lance Naik Yeshwant Patil on March, 1,1972 and he is said to have made a discovery statement 13 days thereafter. Mr. Raje further pointed out that (P.W. 1), Haroon Mohamed from whose shop the radio transistor was recovered, his bare word should not be accepted without corroboration there to from independ evidence. Mr. Raje is right in making these submissions. Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act provides :--- "Whoever has in his possession or conveys 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 punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year but shall not, except for reasons to be recorded in writing, be less than one month and shall also been liable to fine which may extend to five hundred rupees." From the above wording of the section, it can be seen that it is in the present tense and speaks of a person who has in his possession or conveys in any manner or effects for sale or pawn, anything which there is reason to believe is stolen property or property fraudulently obtained. Even according to the prosecution, on March 1, 1972 at about 11-30 p.m. when the accused came to be arrested by Lance Naik Yeshwant Patil, the accused was simply found loitering on the road along with two other boys and he was not in actual possession either of the radio transistor or any other things which could reasonably be believed to be stolen property or property fraudulently obtained. Even if the accused made a discovery statement several days thereafter and some article was recovered in consequences of that statement, he could not legally be prosecuted for an offence under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act. Having regard to the wording of section 124, it does appears that the provisions of this section can be pressed into service only if the person concerned is found to be in actual possession or conveys in any manner or offers for sale pawn, anything which there is reason to believe is stolen property or property fraudulently obtained. The accused Abdul Jabbar not being in actual possession of anything at the time when he came to be arrested, he cannot in any opinion, be legally convicted under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act. Even on merits, the conviction of the appellate accused is unsustainable. The accused was arrested by Lance Naik Yeshwant Patil on March 1, 1972 and he is said to have made a discovery statement more than 13 days thereafter. This itself is a suspicious circumstances. Secondly (P.W. 1), Haroon Mohamed from whose shop the radio transistor was recovered seems to be a receiver of stolen property. He knew the accused Abdul Jabbar about two months prior to March, 1972 and even then, he accepted that radio about two months prior to March, 1972 and even the, he accepted tat radio transistor from the accused and kept it for sale in his shop. The evidence of a person like (P.W.), Haroon Mohamed, who readily enters into such a shady transaction, cannot obviously be accepted unrelied upon without independently corroboration thereof. The evidence or Pancha Charlie, who has been examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged discovery statement of the accused, is also not satisfactory and convincing. He seems to be a person who has specially selected by the Police, inasmuch as they called him from his house from Kali compound to act as a panch. The evidence or Pancha Charlie, who has been examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged discovery statement of the accused, is also not satisfactory and convincing. He seems to be a person who has specially selected by the Police, inasmuch as they called him from his house from Kali compound to act as a panch. On carefully going through the entire evidence in the case. I am not satisfied that it is worthy of acceptance. In the result, the appeal suceeds and is allowed. The conviction recorded and the sentences of imprisonment and fine imposed upon the appellant-accused by the learned trial Magistrate are set aside and the appellant-accused is hereby acquitted of the offence with which he was charged. The amount of fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him. His bail bound shall stand cancelled. -----