https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193128 The scope of Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was treated as already settled, so the State's appeals against inadequate sentence were competent and the objection to maintainability failed. However, despite the trial court's nominal sentence for offences under Section 33(1)(c), Section 33(1)(f) and Section 33(1)(h) of the Indian Forest Act, appellate interference was declined because the facts did not justify enhancement or revision of punishment. The maintainability ruling was therefore overturned, but the refusal to interfere with sentence remained undisturbed, leaving the appeals unsuccessful overall. en-us Tue, 12 Apr 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Jul 2017 15:02:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193128 The scope of Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was treated as already settled, so the State's appeals against inadequate sentence were competent and the objection to maintainability failed. However, despite the trial court's nominal sentence for offences under Section 33(1)(c), Section 33(1)(f) and Section 33(1)(h) of the Indian Forest Act, appellate interference was declined because the facts did not justify enhancement or revision of punishment. The maintainability ruling was therefore overturned, but the refusal to interfere with sentence remained undisturbed, leaving the appeals unsuccessful overall. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 12 Apr 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193128