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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Mr. Kejriwal also argued that the ASI of police, who seized the wheat, had no power to seize it and take the entire proceedings against the accused persons, and as the whole proceedings are null and void, on this ground the appellants deserve acquittal. It was also argued by him that as per the Clause (iv) Export Control Order, 1981, only a Deputy Superintendent of Police has power to seize wheat, which is being exported in violation of this notification. In the present case, the ASI seized the wheat, and as such, the seizure was not a valid one. He further argued that the challan was snbmitted by the SHO, so the challan was also not filed by proper authority. I see no force in this contention.
6. The accused persons were carrying wheat in contravention of the Government order. They were checked by the ASI, and the wheat was seized. Then, they were challaned, and the said challan was submitted by the SHO. There was nothing illegality in it.
7. It was also argued that the appellants have not committed any offence as they were only attempting to export the wheat, and as such no offence has been committed by the appellants. In support of his aforesaid contention, Mr. Kejriwal cited the judgment reported in 1976 Cr.L.J. 317. The above argument has no force.
8. Mr. Kejriwal also prayed that the accused may also be granted the benefit of probation, as this was their first offence, and that, there are a number of rulings of this Court granting such benefit in such cases.
9. I have considered this argument too. This offence is not of ordinary nature. The accused persons were exporting wheat, and the purpose for exporting was nothing but black marketing, and the persons who indulge in black marketing, in my opinion, should never be treated leniently. Therefore, I do not agree with the argument of Mr. Kejriwal that the accused-appellants are entitled to the benefit of probation. There is nothing irregularity or impropriety in the judgment of the Special Judge, which is based on just and proper appreciation of evidence on the record considering the various legal aspects.
10. Therefore, this is not a case even for admission.
11. The appeal is consequently dismissed summarily.