JUDGMENT 1. - The Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., is aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.03.2008 passed by the Special Judge, Electricity Cases, Bhilwara (ADJ, Bhilwara), whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the non-petitioner No.2, Gopilal, for offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed a complaint against respondent No.2 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh on 06.07.2006, wherein it was stated that Shri Rajendra Kumar, Executive Engineer of AVVNL while on routine vigilance checking, found that electric wires was hooked on the low tension lines and irrigation was going on the in the fields of respondent No.2. On the above complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and the matter was committed before the learned ADJ, (Special Judge, Electricity Cases, Bhilwara). The charge was framed against respondent No.2. During the trial, the prosecution produced four witnesses and exhibited five documents. The learned trial Court acquitted the respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 vide its judgment dated 18.03.2008. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that there is sufficient evidence to show the fact that the respondent-accused had committed theft of electricity in order to operate the motor-pump in his farm for irrigating the farm. Therefore, the learned Judge was not justified in acquitting the accused-respondent for offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently contended that the conviction cannot be based on surmises and conjectures. The prosecution has clearly failed to prove the fact that the land belonged to the accused-respondent. Merely because few people have stated that the land belongs to him, it cannot be presumed that the land actually belongs to the accused-respondent. For, it is merely a hearsay evidence. Thus, he has supported the impugned judgment. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. It is, indeed, trite to state that conviction cannot be based on mere suspicion, surmises or conjectures. The distance between "may be true" and "must be true" is a long distance which the prosecution has to travel. In the present case, the prosecution has not been able to establish the factual foundation of the case. 6. It is, indeed, trite to state that conviction cannot be based on mere suspicion, surmises or conjectures. The distance between "may be true" and "must be true" is a long distance which the prosecution has to travel. In the present case, the prosecution has not been able to establish the factual foundation of the case. For, it has failed to establish that the land where the wire was going to, actually belonged to the accused-respondent. Moreover, the complainant did not bother to get any documentary evidence from the Tehsildar or Patwari to establish the fact that the farm was owned by the accused respondent. Moreover, Rajendra Chaudhary (P.W.1) has clearly admitted that he has presumed that land belongs to the accused-respondent only because Shyamlal had said so. Such hearsay evidence cannot be relied upon to convict the accused respondent. Furthermore, the learned Judge has noticed the fact that when the inspection was carried out, the accused respondent was absent. Since the prosecution has not submitted any cogent and convincing evidence, the learned Judge was legally justified in acquitting the accused respondent. 7. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Hence, the criminal leave to appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.Leave to appeal dismissed. *******