ORDER : KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. The present appeal under Section 377 Cr.P.C has been filed to seek enhancement of the sentence awarded upon the accused respondents by the trial court. 2. The court of Special Judge, Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Cases, Jhunjhunu in Session Trial No. 44/2014 vide impugned judgment dated 13.4.2017 held accused respondent no. 1 Sheoprasad guilty of offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act, whereas accused respondent no. 2 Amilal was held guilty of offence under Section 29 read with Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. Having convicted the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences, the trial court vide a separate order of even date sentenced them as under:— U/s. 8/15 NDPS Act-to undergo ten years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default thereof to undergo additional one year RI. U/s. 29 r/w 8/15 NDPS Act-to undergo ten years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default thereof to undergo additional one year RI. 3. Mr. BN Sandhu, the learned Additional Advocate General cum Public Prosecutor has submitted that recovery of 50 kg of Poppy Husk constitute commercial quantity and in the present case 1060 Kg of Poppy Husk in 53 bags were recovered from the accused respondents, hence, sentence awarded by the trial court is not commensurate to the huge recovery effected from the accused respondents. 4. 4. Attention of the learned Public Prosecutor has been drawn to Section 32-B of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which reads as under:— 32-B. Factors to be taken into account for imposing higher than the minimum punishment- Where a minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine is prescribed for any offence committed under this Act, the Court may, in additional to such factors as it may deem fit, take into account the following factors for imposing a punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine, namely:— (a) the use or threat of use of violence or arms by the offender; (b) the fact that the offender holds a public office and that he has taken advantage of that office in committing the offence; (c) the fact that the minors are affected by the offence or the minors are used for the commission of an offence; and (d) the fact that the offence is committed in an educational institution or social service facility or in their immediate vicinity of such institution or faculty or in other place to which school children and students resort for educational, sports and social activities; (e) the fact that the offender belongs to organised international or any other criminal group which is involved in the commission of the offence; and (f) the fact that the offender is involved in other illegal activities facilitated by commission of the offence. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has very fairly conceded that in the present case neither the accused have used threat, violence or arms, nor they are public officers nor they have used minors as carriers and furthermore, the offence was not committed in educational institution or social service facility, rather recovery in the present case has been effected from Kachcha passage near village Marigsar. It is also conceded that no evidence has been led by the prosecution that the accused respondents belong to some organized international or criminal group or are involved in any other criminal activity. No other aggravating circumstances except to point out quantity of the recovery has been spelt out. 6. In view of above, the learned trial court was justified to award minimum sentence as factors noted in Section 32-B of NDPS Act, are not available in the facts and circumstances of the case to award sentence more than the minimum prescribed. No other aggravating circumstances except to point out quantity of the recovery has been spelt out. 6. In view of above, the learned trial court was justified to award minimum sentence as factors noted in Section 32-B of NDPS Act, are not available in the facts and circumstances of the case to award sentence more than the minimum prescribed. Hence, the present appeal for enhancement of sentence being devoid of merits is dismissed.