S.S.SODHI, J. - (1.) THE impugned order of the Sessions Judge, Jind, declining permission to the petitioner Raunki Ram to adduce additional evidence in appeal warrants no interference in revision.
(2.) THE petitioner Raunki Ram was charged for an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1954, for having contravened the provisions of clause (4) of the Haryana Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Act and Price Control Order, 1978 for having in his possession more than 200 quintals of foodgrains. The petitioner was tried and convicted as charged and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. On appeal, Raunki Ram sought to lead additional evidence, namely; some railway reeipts with a view to show that some wheat had been dispatched on instructions from M/s. Mittal Brothers Foodgrains Dealers. This, the Sessions Judge did not permit the petitioner to bring on record and hence this revision petition.
(3.) A reference to the record would show that in the trial, the statement of the petitioner was recorded as far back as November 17, 1984. The case was thereafter adjourned thrice for the recording of defence evidence before it was posted for arguments, which were heard on January 4, 1985 and the trial Magistrate thereafter convicted and sentenced the petitioner by his order of January 7, 1985.;