JUDGMENT 1. - The Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited ('the company', in short), is aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.8.2008 passed by Special Judge (Electricity Act Cases) and Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused- respondent, Darshan Lal alias Darshan, for offences under Section 135 Electricity Act, 2003, and Section 3 PDPP Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 8.9.2006, Hanuman Singh (PW- 1), Assistant Engineer, JVVNL, Hanumangarh, submitted a written report, wherein he claimed that accused committed the theft of electricity by hanging a hook on Pole No. 8/4 of L.T. Line. On the basis of this written report, a formal F.I.R., F.I.R. No. 556/2006 for offences under Section 135 Electricity Act, 2003 Section 379 Indian Penal Code, and for offence under Section 3, PDPP Act was registered at Police Station Hanumangarh Junction. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused-respondent for the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and offence under Section 3 PDPP Act. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and submitted thirteen documents. The defence examined one witness, Mr. Rajendra Pal. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 6.8.2008, the learned Judge acquitted the accused-respondent. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal before this Court 3. Mr. Ravi Bhansali, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has mis-appreciated the entire evidence produced by the prosecution. Although the learned Judge has concluded that the F.I.R. was delayed by almost ten days, but the company was justified in lodging the F.I.R. belatedly. For before lodging the F.I.R., the company was required to give a notice to the accused about the civil liability of having committed theft of electricity and damages caused to the electric wire. Secondly, according to Hanuman Singh (PW-1) and according to Shakti Singh (PW-6), when the team had gone for inspection, they had not only discovered that Darshan Lal was committing theft of electricity, but most importantly according to them he had pulled the wire inside the house. Subsequently, he ran away from the place. Therefore, the learned Judge is unjustified in claiming that the prosecution has failed to prove whether Darshan Lal was actually present at the spot or not. Thirdly, the prosecution has clearly proved the fact that subsequently the wire was recovered. Subsequently, he ran away from the place. Therefore, the learned Judge is unjustified in claiming that the prosecution has failed to prove whether Darshan Lal was actually present at the spot or not. Thirdly, the prosecution has clearly proved the fact that subsequently the wire was recovered. Lastly and most importantly, the prosecution has proven the fact that the house belonged to Darshan Lal. Despite this overwhelming evidence, the learned Judge has acquitted the accused-respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment is untenable. 4. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Dadhich, the learned counsel for accused- respondent, has seriously contended that the learned Judge has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. In an elaborate judgment, he has pointed out the contradictions which have affected the case of the prosecution. While some of the witnesses, viz. Hanuman Singh (PW-1), and Shakti Singh (PW-6) claimed that they had located the house of Darshan Lal after asking some of the neighbours, Narendra Pal Singh (PW-4) claims that he had known the accused from before. Thus, there was no need to ask for the house of Darshan Lal. Secondly, there is a contradiction with regard to whether the proceedings of the inspection were noted in the register or not. Thirdly, there is a clearcut contradiction about the nature of the wire which was recovered. While all the witnesses have claimed that the wire was tipped with a copper capping, according to the learned Judge, the wire which was produced before the Court had a silver aluminum capping. Lastly, there is a contradiction whether Darshan Lal was present on the spot, or he was absent. Thus, the learned Judge was justified in concluding that the case of the prosecution is replete with contradictions. Since the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the learned Judge was certainly justified in acquitting the accused-respondent of the aforementioned offences. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment, and examined the record. 6. It is, indeed, trite to state that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt. The distance between may be true' and 'must be true' is a long distance, which the prosecution is required to cover. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment, and examined the record. 6. It is, indeed, trite to state that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt. The distance between may be true' and 'must be true' is a long distance, which the prosecution is required to cover. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that the learned Judge has noticed the fact that although the incident was of 31.8.2006, the F.I.R. was not lodged till 8.9.2006, i.e. after an inordinate delay of almost seven days. Of course, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the said time was required so as to give oral notice to the accused-respondent with regard to his civil liability. However, there is no such evidence on record to show that in fact such an oral notice was ever given. It was for the prosecution to explain the inordinate delay. For, it is the settled position of law that delay defeats the veracity of a F.I.R. Since the delay has not been explained by the prosecution, obviously, 'it is fatal to the prosecution. 7. Secondly, the learned judge has clearly noticed that while Hanuman Singh (PW-1) claims that they had to find out from neighbours whether the house belonged to Darshan or not, Narendra Pal Singh (PW-4) clearly claims that he knew the accused-respondent from before hand. In case, Narendra Pal Singh knew the accused-respondent, obviously there was no need for the raiding party to verify about the house of the accused-respondent. 8. Thirdly, there is a contradiction within the evidence about the presence of Darshan at the time when the raiding party reached his house. While some of the witnesses claim that he had pulled the wire inside his house, thereby implying his presence, other witnesses have said that he was not available at his house. 9. Fourthly, there is a contradiction whether the proceedings undertaken by the raiding party were recorded in a register or not. According to Pothi Ram (PW-5), whenever a raiding party reaches a place, it carries a register and records the proceeding. However,. according to Hanuman Singh (PW-1) no such diary or register has ever been maintained. 10. Fifthly, according to the prosecution, Darshan had subsequently appeared and had handed over the wire which was allegedly pulled into his house. According to Pothi Ram (PW-5), whenever a raiding party reaches a place, it carries a register and records the proceeding. However,. according to Hanuman Singh (PW-1) no such diary or register has ever been maintained. 10. Fifthly, according to the prosecution, Darshan had subsequently appeared and had handed over the wire which was allegedly pulled into his house. However, the learned Judge has noticed the. fact that while all the witnesses claim that the wire had a copper topping, the wire produced before the trial Court had an aluminum and silver topping. Therefore, the recovery of the wire does not connect the accused-respondent with the crime. 11. Since the case of the prosecution is full of gapping holes, naturally, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the learned Judge was certainly justified in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused-respondent. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there is neither any illegality, nor any perversity in the impugned judgment.The criminal leave to appeal being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed.Leave to Appeal dismissed. *******