Dismissed

State v. Shanker and Anr.

Rajasthan HC31 Jul 2017CRLA/904/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State of Rajasthan filed a Criminal Appeal seeking enhancement of sentences for drug trafficking offences. The single judge, after condoning a 13-day delay, found no merit in the appeal as no significant circumstances existed to enhance the trial court's minimum sentence of 10 years RI. Appeal was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Appeal rejected; original sentence of 10 years RI and fine maintained.

State Vs Shanker and Anr. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 904 / 2016

State of Rajasthan

----Appellant

Versus

ShankerLuhar son of Ram Niwas, resident of Bus Stand, Sardarsahar,

¶7

P.S. Banera, Bhilwara.

¶8

Nanu Ram son of Jai Kishan Bawari, resident of Devipura Rupaheli, P.S. Gulabpura, District Bhilwara.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.K.Vyas, G.A.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Judgment

¶12

31/07/2017

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLA-904/2016]

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

I have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. S.K.Vyas, G.A. on merits and have gone through the impugned judgment.

¶20

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.

¶21

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant appeal is hereby rejected as being devoid of merit.

¶22

/sushil/

State v. Shanker and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Shanker and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Kumar Vs Roop Singh

Arvind Kumar Vs Roop Singh

Ramniwas and Ors. Vs State

Mahendra Kumar Vs State and Anr.

Prahalad Vs State

State of Rajasthan Vs Amit Kumar