High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 07 RAJ CK 0071

State of Rajasthan vs ShankerLuhar son of Ram Niwas

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 31 July 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Mehta
CASE NUMBER
904 of 2016

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

31 paragraphs · 317 words
1.

Notice of the respondent no. 1 has been received served.

Notice of respondent no. 2 received unserved as presently he is

lodged at Ajmer jail.

2.

By way of this appeal, the State of Rajasthan has

approached this Court under Section 377 Cr.P.C. seeking

enhancement of sentences awarded to the respondents by learned

Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.

42/2011 whereby whilst holding the respondent Shanker Luhar

guilty for the offence under Section 8 / 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and

the respondent Nanu Ram for the offence under Section 8 / 15 of

the N.D.P.S. Act the trial court sentenced each of them to 10

years'' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each, in default of payment of

fine to further undergo one year''s R.I.

3.

Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case

as available on record, the delay of 13 days occasioned in filing

the appeal is condoned while accepting the application preferred

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

4.

I have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. S.K.Vyas, G.A.

on merits and have gone through the impugned judgment.

5.

The F.I.R. was registered way back in the year 2011 with the

allegation that the respondents were framed indulging in illicit

trade of poppy straw weighing 407 kgs. Learned trial Judge

awarded the minimum prescribed sentence of 10 years R.I. and a

fine of Rs. 1 Lakh to both the respondents after holding them

guilty as mentioned above. Learned Govt. Advocate has not been

able to point any significant circumstance or any previous adverse

criminal conduct of the respondents by which this Court can be

persuaded to enhance the minimum sentence of 10 years R.I.

awarded to them by the trial court for these offences.

6.

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant

appeal is hereby rejected as being devoid of merit.