CHAMPAKLAL GANESHMAL vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, for possession of wrist watches deemed as 'stolen property or property fraudulently obtained'. The Court clarified that possession of property described as such suffices for conviction, regardless of who originally stole or fraudulently obtained it. The appellant's unsatisfactory explanation for possession led to the dismissal of the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision.