JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jhalrapatan, is aggrieved by the judgment dated 4.2.2009, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused-respondent, Radhey Shyam Gupta, for offence under Section 28(2) of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-complainant had filed a complaint before the trial court wherein it had alleged that the accused-respondent had a licence from the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti for trading in agriculture products. It was further alleged that in the year 1999-2000, the accused-respondent imported about 125 quintal of Sugar from Maharashtra. For importing the said sugar, the accused-respondent was liable to pay a mandi fee to the tune of Rs. 2,713/-. But he neither informed, nor deposited the said amount with the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. The learned trial court framed the charges against the accused-respondent for offence under Section 28(2) of the Act. In order to buttress its case, the complainant examined one witness and submitted three documents. The accused-respondent neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent. Hence this criminal leave to appeal before this court. 3. Mr. Inderjeet Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the learned trial court has erred in acquitting the accused-respondent ostensibly on the ground that no evidence was placed before the trial court that the accused-respondent had imported sugar from Maharashtra and had failed to pay the requisite fee. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that the learned trial court has observed that but for a letter received from Maharashtra, the complainant did not produce any evidence to show that sugar was imported from Maharashtra and the requisite fee was not paid. The learned counsel has frankly conceded, and in the opinion of this Court, rightly so, that even the letter received from Maharashtra was not proved by anyone. In the absence of any cogent and legal evidence, obviously the learned trial court had no other option, but to acquit the accused-respondent. 6. Hence, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment. In the absence of any cogent and legal evidence, obviously the learned trial court had no other option, but to acquit the accused-respondent. 6. Hence, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment. This criminal leave to appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******