JUDGMENT & ORDER : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. The matter comes up for consideration of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the delay of six days in filing the appeal. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the State being aggrieved with the judgment dated 9.6.2016 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur (for short ‘the trial court) in Criminal Original Case No. 89/2011 (1067/2014), whereby the trial court while convicting the accused respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 15(c) of the (2 of 3) NDPS Act has sentenced them for ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of rupees one lakh each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment. 3. The trial court has convicted the respondent No. 3 for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 25 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him for ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of rupees one lakh, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment. This appeal is essentially filed by the State with a prayer for enhancement of the sentence of the accused respondents awarded by the trial court. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that total 4944 kg and 130 gms of poppy straw was recovered from the possession of the accused respondents, for which, they were not carrying any valid license or permit. It is contended that looking to the huge quantity of narcotics contraband recovered from the illegal possession of the accused respondents, they are liable to be sentenced for a long period and not for minimum sentence as prescribed under the NDPS Act. 5. Having heard learned Public Prosecutor and after going through the impugned judgment, this Court does not find any merit in the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor. The trial court while sentencing the accused respondents has provided full opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, however, he has never prayed for sentencing the accused respondents for long imprisonment from the minimum sentences. Learned Public Prosecutor has failed to convince this Court that the accused respondents deserve imprisonment for a long period other than the sentence awarded to them by the trial court. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has failed to convince this Court that the accused respondents deserve imprisonment for a long period other than the sentence awarded to them by the trial court. 6. Hence, no case for interference in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court is made out. 7. Resultantly, this criminal appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.