JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, is aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.04.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Nagaur, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused respondent, M/s. Narayan Timber Merchant of offences under Sections 28(1), 28(2) and 28(3) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Secretary of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti submitted a Floating Frame complaint against the accused-respondent on the ground that M/s. Narayan Timber Merchant is a licence holder from the Mandi under the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961. It is liable to pay the market duties for the transaction of agricultural products. Although, the Secretary had issued notice to the accused-firm to submit its record, yet it failed to do so. Therefore, the record was retrieved from the Sales Tax Department. The analysis of the record revealed that the accused-firm had failed to pay the agricultural duties for the years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. He further claimed that although the accused firm was liable to pay the agricultural duties to the tune of Rs. 26,665/-, but it had merely paid Rs. 9,364/-. Therefore, it owed agricultural duties of Rs. 17,301/-. Since the said duties were not paid, it had violated Sections 28(1) and 28(2) of the Act. 3. In order to buttress its case, the appellant had examined three witnesses, and had submitted four documents. In defence, the accused-firm neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 06.04.2010, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused-firm. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal before this court. 4. Mr. Ravi Bhansali, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The learned Magistrate is misplaced in concluding that the appellant had failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the appellant had given notice to the accused-firm to produce its record, it was the duty of the accused-firm to produce the same. The fault does not lie with the appellant for non production of the record. Moreover, since the accused-firm had already paid agricultural duties to the tune of Rs. Since the appellant had given notice to the accused-firm to produce its record, it was the duty of the accused-firm to produce the same. The fault does not lie with the appellant for non production of the record. Moreover, since the accused-firm had already paid agricultural duties to the tune of Rs. 9,364/-, a presumption should have been drawn that the accused-firm is duly licenced and is working in the area which falls within the jurisdiction of Mandi. However, the learned Magistrate has not drawn the said presumption. Moreover, the appellant had filed the complaint on the basis of the documents which were received from the Sales-tax Department. It was for the accused-firm to inform the appellant as to the amount of wood sold by it. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has wrongly placed the blame on the appellant in not proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that in criminal cases, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, when the appellant had claimed that the accused-respondent was a licence firm from the Mandi and it was functioning within its jurisdiction, therefore, these facts had to be established by the appellant itself. However, it has failed to prove these facts. Moreover, the agricultural duties are imposed only upon the wood sold by the firm and not upon the plywood, fevicol or other items such as sun mica sold by the firm. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and examined the record. 7. It is, indeed, a settled position of law that the long distance between "may be true" and "must be true" has to be covered by the prosecution. The prosecution must establish each fact through cogent and convincing evidence. It was the case of the appellant that the accused firm was licenced by it to operate within the jurisdiction falling under the Mandi. Despite the fact that licence issued by it was in its possession, the same was never produced along with the complaint or during the trial. Moreover, the appellant failed to prove the fact that the accused firm was working within its jurisdiction. It also failed to prove the fact that Bhanwar Lal was the proprietor of the said firm. Despite the fact that licence issued by it was in its possession, the same was never produced along with the complaint or during the trial. Moreover, the appellant failed to prove the fact that the accused firm was working within its jurisdiction. It also failed to prove the fact that Bhanwar Lal was the proprietor of the said firm. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the basic and fundamental facts of the case. 8. Admittedly, the agricultural duties were levied only on the wood sold by the firm. The appellant has not been able to tell the court the exact amount which were rightly due from the firm. The calculation made by the appellant was based upon the documents received by it from the Sales-tax Department. However, Ranveer Singh (P.W.1) has clearly admitted, in his cross-examination, that the amount of Rs. 17,301/- is not the amount levied only upon the wood. But it is the amount which is on the total sales made by the accused-firm including the sales of plywood, sunmica and fevicol and other items. Thus, the appellant has clearly failed to prove the exact amount which was due to it from the accused-firm. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was certainly justified in acquitting the firm of the offences under Sections 28(1), 28(2) and 28(3) of the Act. 9. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment; the criminal leave to appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.Leave to appeal dismissed. *******