2017 (3) TMI 439

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sentenced as under : Offences: Sentence awarded: 8/18 NDPS Act 15 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo 2 years' rigorous imprisonment. 8/25 NDPS Act 15 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo 2 years' rigorous imprisonment.   All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is not challenging the findings of the trial court regarding conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offences and is simply praying that the sentences of 15 years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant by the tria....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lty of transporting huge quantity of opium and, therefore, the trial court has rightly sentenced him for 15 years' rigorous imprisonment for the aforesaid offences and the same are not liable to be reduced. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special Public Prosecutor, perused the impugned judgment and record of the case. Since, learned counsel for the appellant is not challenging the findings of the trial court, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 8/18 and 8/25 of NDPS Act, the said conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial court is maintained. Now, the question before this Court is whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, sentences awarded to the app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... In the present case, the appellant is in custody since the date of his arrest i.e. 28.05.2007 and as per the letter of Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur dated 01.11.2014 addressed to the Government Advocate, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur, the age of the appellant on 01.11.2014 was 74 years and up to 30.10.2014 he has served 7 years 5 months and 1 day's imprisonment, as such at present the age of the appellant is about 77 years. Learned Special Public Prosecutor is not in a position to dispute the fact that the appellant is convicted for the first time for the aforesaid offences and no other criminal case was or is pending against the appellant. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the vi....