JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant State of Rajasthan has preferred this criminal leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 21.9.2000 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special Court (Communal Riots), Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the trial Court') in criminal case No. 332/2000 by which he acquitted the accused respondent from the offence under Sections 336 and 323 I.P.C.Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Mohd. Irfan lodged an F.I.R. No. 703/1997 at P.S. Kotwali, Jaipur for the offence under Sections 336 and 323 I.P.C. 2. The police after investigation submitted against the accused respondent for the aforesaid offences. 3. The trial Court after hearing framed charges against the accused respondent for the aforesaid offences, who denied the charges, did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 4. The prosecution in support of its case produced only one witness. 5. Thereafter, the statement of the accused respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. 6. The trial Court after hearing acquitted the accused respondent from the aforesaid offences vide judgment dated 21.9.2000. Hence this criminal leave to appeal. 7. I have heard both the counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully gone through the entire material made available to me. 8. Leaned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Rajasthan submits that the findings arrived at by the trial Court are vitiated as being based on misreading and non-reading of the material evidence in support of the prosecution as well as on mere surmises and conjecture. The trial Court has seriously erred in discarding the whole evidence and disbelieving the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The trial Court has committed an illegality and irregularity in not relying the statement of PW-1 Mohd. Irfan, who placed sufficient evidence on record for prosecuting the accused respondent under Sections 336 and 323 I.P.C. Thus, impugned judgment of acquittal dated 21.9.2000 passed by the trial Court be quashed and set-aside. 9. On the other hand learned counsel for the accused respondent submits that the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment after properly considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses as also the other material made available to him and it has not committed any illegality and irregularity in acquitting the accused respondent. Thus no interference is required to be made in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 10. Thus no interference is required to be made in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 10. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case, statements of the prosecution witnesses, in my considered view, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the learned trial Court in acquitting the accused respondent.In the result, this criminal leave to appeal is devoid of merits and stands rejected.Leave to appeal dismissed. *******