JUDGMENT 1. - The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.03.2012 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused-respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for offence under Section 136 of the Electricity Act and for offence under Section 3 of P.D.P.P. Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 14.06.2008, Mohanram (P.W.6), Junior Engineer, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Nachna (hereinafter referred to Floating Frame as "the Electrical Company", for short) had submitted a written report (Ex.P/7) before the Police Station Nokh, wherein he had claimed that in the night of 13.06.2008, from ten poles the wires of 33 KV which were going from 1120 RD to Nachna, were stolen by some unknown persons. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR, FIR No.22/2008, was registered by the Police. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for the aforementioned offences. 3. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined nine witness and submitted nine documents. The defence neither examine any witness, nor submit any documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge acquitted the accused-respondents. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal before this Court. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has ignored the fact that the wires, which were allegedly stolen by the accused-respondents were duly recovered upon the information given by them. The wires were subsequently handed over by the police to the Electrical Company. Therefore, according to him, the prosecution had proven its case beyond a shadow of doubt. Hence, the learned Judge has committed an illegality in acquitting the accused-respondents for the aforementioned offences. 5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that according to the prosecution the accused respondents were already arrested and detained in another case. According to the prosecution, they had given the statement to the investigating agency under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Upon their statement, allegedly wires were recovered from an open space. However, according to the learned Judge, the said open space was accessible to one and all. Moreover, during the recovery, the police did not involve any independent witness. No reason was given by the Investigating Officer for not calling for the independent witness. Upon their statement, allegedly wires were recovered from an open space. However, according to the learned Judge, the said open space was accessible to one and all. Moreover, during the recovery, the police did not involve any independent witness. No reason was given by the Investigating Officer for not calling for the independent witness. Furthermore, there was neither a single symbol nor anything indicative of the fact that the wires belonged to the Electrical Company. Further, wires so recovered were never subjected to any identification parade. Merely because, wires have been deposited with the Electrical Company would not substantiate the case of the prosecution. After all, the investigating agency was required to subject the wires to identification parade. The wires had to be identified by the officers of the Electrical Company. Hence, there is no evidence to show that the wires allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused-respondents belonged to the Electrical Company. Therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish a valid recovery. Furthermore, the alleged recovery could not connect the accused-respondents to the alleged offences. 7. Hence, in the opinion of this Court the learned Judge was certainly justified in acquitting the accused-respondents for the aforementioned offences. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment dated 21.03.2012. 8. This criminal leave to appeal being devoid of any merit; it, is, hereby, dismissed.Leave to appeal dismissed. *******