S. S. BYAS, J. - (1.) THE State has come-up in appeal for the enhancement of sentence. Accused-respondent was convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Barmer under section 9 of the Opium Act and was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of the payment of fine to undergo one month's simple imprisonment.
(2.) IT was argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the sentence awarded to the accused-respondent is grossly inadequate, which should, therefore, be enhanced. IT was, on the other hand, contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the offence was committed long back in 1972 and the appeal was filed in 1974. Since then the appeal is pending. Looking to the long interval, it would not be proper now to enhance the sentence. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. Admittedly, the offence was committed long back in 1972 and the impugned judgement of the learned Magistrate was passed in 1974. We are now in 1986. It does not appear proper to enhance the sentence after a long lapse of twelve years. The offence, when committed, was punishable with fine alone also. For the reasons stated above, we decline to enhance the sentence and dismiss the State's appeal. .;