M.C. Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS Cr. Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dt. 08.12.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar in Special Case No. 34/2007, by which he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Sec. 135 of Electricity Act. Brief facts of the case are as under: The complainant filed a complaint under Sec. 135 of the Electricity Act against the accused respondent, whereupon FIR was registered and investigation was commenced. On completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused respondent in the concerned Court. The trial Court readover the substance of accusation to the accused respondent, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of the accused respondent were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment dt. 08.12.2010 acquitting the accused respondent for the alleged offences, as indicated above.
(2.) AGAINST the said judgment of the trial Court dt. 08.12.2010, this Cr. Appeal was preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned judgment passed by the Court below, by which the accused respondent has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him, is erroneous, perverse, illegal and contrary to law. He has further contended that the Court below has erred in not believing on the statements of prosecution witnesses and documents submitted from the prosecution side by which the offences against the accused respondent is well proved and acquitted the accused respondent from the charges levelled against them, which is illegal. Thus, the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set -aside and the accused respondent should be convicted for the alleged offence.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned judgment.;