G.K.SHARMA, J. - (1.)HEARD learned Counsel for both the parties, and also perused the judgment of the Special Judge, who has tried this case and discussed in his judgment, the entire evidence and the various aspects of this case.
(2.)THIS is a case under the Essential Commodities Act, (hereinafter for short, 'the Act'), and the appellants were exporting wheat contravening the provisions of the Act.
Mr. Kejriwal argued that the accused -appellants cultivated their field along with their brother -in -law. and that, they were carrying the wheat and article which were in the share of their brother -in -law, and going to his house to hand over his share. Ft was also argued that the accused -appellants were caught in the boundary of the State of Rajasthan near the boundary of Haryana, and that, at that time of the seizure, they stated that they were taking the said wheat to Village Rodwal where their brother -in -law used to reside. It was also argued that their brother -in -law was also produced as defence -witness.

(3.)ALL these aspects were considered by the learned Special Judge in his judgment, and he has disbelieved the contention of the accused persons. I think that the learned Special Judge has not committed any error in disbelieving the defence story.