JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.05.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Abu Road, District Sirohi, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused-respondent of offence under Section 2(2) of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and under Section 26(d) of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, the State has approached this Court. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the testimony of Ugam Singh (P.W.1) is sufficient to prove that the accused-respondents were illegally in constructing a hotel in the forest land. Therefore, they had clearly committed the offence under Section 2(2) of the Forest Conservation Act as well as offence under Section 26(d) of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953. Thus, the learned Magistrate was not justified in acquitting the accused-respondents of the afore-mentioned offences. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, has strenuously contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Firstly, it has failed to prove that the land was demarcated as a forest. Secondly, there is no evidence to show that the hotel were being constructed illegally. The prosecution has merely shown the recovery of the certain tools and implements which are used for construction. However, these tools and implements can also be used for other activities other than construction. Lastly, according to the prosecution, three persons were noted to have committed the offences, yet the charge-sheet was not filed against all three of them. Hence, the learned Judge was certainly justified in acquitting the accused respondents. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that the prosecution had not established the fact that the land, on which the alleged hotel was illegally being constructed, belongs to the Forest Department. Hence, the very basis of the case have not been proved. This lacuna knocks the bottom of the prosecution case. Moreover, the prosecution has merely shown the recovery of certain tools such as "Tagari" (a metal basket for carrying sand and soil) and shovels. However, these implements can be used for other purposes. Moreover, according to Shaitan Singh, criminal complaint was filed only against Swaroop Rana. However, as the complaint was filed against the offenders, the learned Judge has rightly noted that the complainant does not even know the basic facts of the case. However, these implements can be used for other purposes. Moreover, according to Shaitan Singh, criminal complaint was filed only against Swaroop Rana. However, as the complaint was filed against the offenders, the learned Judge has rightly noted that the complainant does not even know the basic facts of the case. Hence, the learned Judge has given legal and cogent reasons for acquitting the accused respondents. 6. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal is without any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.Leave to appeal dismissed. *******