JUDGMENT 1. -This revision petition has been filed against the judgment of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota, dated 8-8-83, by which he confirmed the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner by the Judl. Magistrate, No. 4, Kota, vide his judgment dated 30-7-81. 2. This case pertains to the year 1968. It is said that on 25-8-68, the petitioner got down from the bus at the village Barkheda, was caught by constables Jagmal Singh and Ram Devi. The petitioner was brought to the police line along with bag which he was carrying. On search of the bag, it was found that the petitioner had 6. 150 kg opium in this bag. He was arrested and after investigation challan was submitted. In the beginning, this case was challenged in the Court of City Magistrate, Kota, in the year 1968 and later on it was transferred to the court of Judl. Magistrate, Kota. The Judl. Magistrate, Kota, vide his order dated 30-7-81, found the accused petitioner guilty of the offence under Sec 4/9 of the Opium Act and sentenced him to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5.00/-. In default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 3. The petitioner preferred an appeal against this conviction and the A.D.J. No. 2, Kota, dismissed his appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned J. M. No. 4, Kota. 4. In this revision petition the only point argued before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is on the humanitarian ground. It is said that this case pertains to year 1968 and since then the accused is facing this criminal proceedings. As stated that his wife has already expired and he has only one son aged 10-11 years and in the house, no body is there to look-after his child. It was also argued that he was already in jail for about one month and without going on the merits of this case, it is prayed that the accused petitioner be released on the sentence already undergone by him. 5. I have considered this argument and also heard learned counsel for the State. No doubt more than 6 kg. It was also argued that he was already in jail for about one month and without going on the merits of this case, it is prayed that the accused petitioner be released on the sentence already undergone by him. 5. I have considered this argument and also heard learned counsel for the State. No doubt more than 6 kg. opium was recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner but he is facing this trial since 1968 and has already been in jail for about a month, it will be quite unjust, if he is sent to jail to undergo the remaining sentence awarded to him. I am of the view that one months imprisonment already undergone by him would meet the ends of justice. It is said that the fine has already been deposited by him. 6. Under such facts and circumstances of this case, I agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The revision petition is admitted and at this stage after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned P.P., the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner u/s. 4/9 of the Opium Act is maintained but instead ' of sentencing him to one years rigorous imprisonment, he is sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone by him and will not be kept in jail for undergoing the remaining sentence. 8. The accused is in jail, hence to be released immediately. *******