JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti through its Secretary, has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.7.1991 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (for short the learned appellate Court') in criminal appeal No. 102/1988 whereby he acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under section 17 read with Section 28 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961 and also for the offence under Rule 64(1) and 76 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Marketing Rules, 1963 read with section 36(3) and 36(3) respectively of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961 as well as for the offence under Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Committee Bye-Laws 31 read with Bye-laws 35 and for the offence under section 37(2)' of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961 and has set aside the conviction of the accused non-petitioners passed by learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khanpur (for short the learned 'trial Court') dated 31.8.1988 in criminal .,case No. 54/82. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Khanpur through its Secretary filed the complaints on 10.08.81 which were registered and tied. together. It was alleged in the complaint that accused non-petitioners by making the sale of agriculture produce without auction, made sale without making entries in the record and as such the sale was done by the accused non-petitioners without making the payment of the Mandi fee as required under the provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws. 3. After submission of the complaint before the Magistrate, cognizance was taken against the accused respondents. 4. The charges were read over to the accused respondents, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 5. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khanpur, vide its judgment dated 31.8.1988 convicted and sentenced the accused respondents as indicated here-in-above. 6. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction dated 31.8.1988, the accused respondents preferred an appeal before learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (for short 'the learned appellate court. 7. The learned appellate court after hearing both the counsel, acquitted the accused respondents vide Judgment dated 10.7.1991. 8. The State of Rajasthan feeling aggrieved with the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 10.7.1991 has preferred instant criminal appeal before this Court. 9. 7. The learned appellate court after hearing both the counsel, acquitted the accused respondents vide Judgment dated 10.7.1991. 8. The State of Rajasthan feeling aggrieved with the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 10.7.1991 has preferred instant criminal appeal before this Court. 9. In this appeal it has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti that the learned appellate Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondents, as the Judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court against the accused respondents was just and proper. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 10.7.1991 is erroneous one and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate Court is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the learned appellate Court has acquitted the accused respondents. He submits that complaint has been submitted on 10.8.81 and the Court took cognizance on 17.3.1982 i.e. beyond the prescribed period of limitation and after such a long lapse of time, the Court cannot take cognizance. Lastly, he submits that the accused respondents are facing trial for the last 28 years which tantamount to a punishment and mental agony. Thus, the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 10.7.1991 passed by the learned appellate Court need no interference of this Court. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and also gone through the record of the case. 12. Having gone through the impugned judgment 10.7.1991 passed by the learned appellate Court, I find that the learned appellate court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused respondents. 13. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able-to prove its case against the accused respondents for the offence for which they have been convicted and the learned appellate Court was right in acquitting the accused respondents. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned appellate Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned appellate Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. It may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as Extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, Yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weightage and consideration to the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of accquittal. Therefore this Court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgement of accquittal dated 10.7.1991 passed by the learned appellate Court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly this appeal filed by petitioner Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti fails and the same is hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment of accquittal dated 10.7.1991 passed by learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (Raj.) in criminal appeal No. 102/1988.Appeal Dismissed. *******