The enhancement of sentence requires clear evidence of the offence's gravity, which was not demonstrated in this case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

Gita Gopi, J.

1. The jail remarks shows that the respondent-accused had undergone imprisonment of one year and thirteen days. The impugned order had sentenced the accused for one year rigorous imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sections 20 (B), 25, 27, 8, 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act” for short). The judgment was passed by the learned Special Judge, 2^nd Fast Track Court, Amreli in Special Case No.40 of 2007, against which, the State has come for enhancement of the sentence under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The appeal bears the certificate copy, where the endorsement shows that by Receipt No.168 on the very same day of the judgment, the fine amount of Rs.15,000/- has been paid.

2. Section 377 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

“377. Appeal by the State Government against sentence.—

(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), the State Government may, in any case of conviction on a trial held by any Court other than a High Court, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy—

(a) to the Court of Session, if the sentence is passed by the Magistrate; and (b) to the High Court, if the sentence is passed by any other Court.

(2) If such conviction is in a case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, the Central Government may also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy—

(a) to the Court of Session, if the sentence is passed by the Magistrate; and (b) to the High Court, if the sentence is passed by any other Court.

(3) When an appeal has been filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the Court of Session or, as the case may be, the High Court shall not enhance the sentence except after giving to the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement and while showing cause, the accused may plead for his acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence.”

3. In the case of the State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal & Another in Criminal Appeal No.959 of 2018, while deciding the leniency, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that the High Court was too lenient in imposing the sentence of six days only which was the period already undergone by the accused in confinement. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court imposed a sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred to the case of Soman vs. State of Kerala , reported in (2013) 11 SCC 382 and Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 2 SCC 648 and has made observations in Paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 as under:-

“10. Currently, India does not have structured sentencing guidelines that have been issued either by the legislature or the judiciary. However, the Courts have framed certain guidelines in the matter of imposition of sentence. A Judge has wide discretion in awarding the sentence within the statutory limits. Since in many offences only the maximum punishment is prescribed and f