Raunki Ram vs State of Haryana

S.S. Sodhi, J.

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.

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 JUDGMENT 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.

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.

Not only this, in appeal, it was after five dates of hearing before the Sessions Judge that the application for additional evidence was filed. It is pertinent to note that there is no reason or explanation forthcoming to account for this evidence not having been put in at the proper stage or event at the earliest stage before the appellate Court. The appellate Court undoubtedly has the power and authority to allow additional evidence to be led, but as is well known, this is power to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. Further, even from the nature of the evidence sought be led, counsel failed to show that there were any sufficient grounds for allowing it to come on record at this belated stage. No exception can thus be taken to the appellate Court to turning down the application for additional evidence.

This revision petition is accordingly hereby dismissed.