JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition filed by Birdhilal petitioner against the judgement of the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. dated 16th Nov. 84 confirming the judgment and the sentence passed by the CJM, Jhalawar, dated 20th, Sept. 83 for the offence under section 4/9, Opium Act, The petitioner has been sentenced to 6 months RI and a fine of Rs. 250/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 months RI. 2. According to the prosecution, on 16th Nov,'82 the Excise Inspector checked the bus at Octroi-Post, Bhanja Chouraha, Jhalawar. During checking, it was found that one Prakrsh Chandra son of Jyotiswaroop Mahajan was having one suitcase with him. After opening it, it was found that one bag was there inside wrapped with a rag. On opening the hag, it was found that it Contained opium, The weight of the opium was about 10 kgs. & 200 gms. Sample was taken from the said bag. Another person named Birdhilal was also in the bus who was carrying bedding. lithe said bedding wrapped in a quilt, 2 bags containing opium were found. Both the bags contained about 10 kgs. & 500 gms. of opium. Sample of opium was also taken from those bags. Then, the samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner. On examination, it was found to be opium. So, petitioner Birdhilal was for the offence under section 4/9 of the Opium Act. The other person Prakash Chandra has been absconding and proceedings under section 299 are being taken against him. 3. On trial, the learned CJM found the present petitioner guilt-u/s. 4/9 of the Opium Act, and sentenced him to imprisonment and fine as mentioned above. Then, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, who maintained the conviction and the sentence of the petitioner. 4. In this revision petition, Mr. Gupta did not argue the case on merits, not only prayed that when the offence was committed by the petitioner, he was only of 15-16 years of age, and that, the offence is of 1972, and since then the petitioner be released on probation. 5. Mr. Alvi opposed the prayer of Mr. Gupta, and argued that the petitioner was found carrying 101/2 kgs. of opium which was quite a large quantity of opium, and therefore, he should not be dealt with leniently giving the benefit of probation. 5. Mr. Alvi opposed the prayer of Mr. Gupta, and argued that the petitioner was found carrying 101/2 kgs. of opium which was quite a large quantity of opium, and therefore, he should not be dealt with leniently giving the benefit of probation. 6. I have considered the rival contentions of both the learned counsel, and found that the incident is of the year 1972, and since then, the petitioner has been facing the trial. This is 1984, and if the petitioner is put to jail to undergo the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him, it would not be just and proper. Apart from this, when the offence was committed, the petitioner was of 15-16 years of age. So, looking to the age of petitioner at the time when the offence was committed by him and the fact that the trial has already taken 14 years, I feel that the petitioner should be granted the benefit of probation. 7. As he was found in possession of 101/2 kgs. of opium, his sentence of Rs. 250/- is maintained. But, for the substantive offence it is ordered that he be released on probation on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, for keeping the peace and taking of good behaviour for a period of t wo years. If he repeats any such offence during this period of two years, he be taken into custody to undergo the sentence of imprisonment a warded to him by the learned lower courts. The conviction of the petitioner is confirmed and maintained. One months time is allowed to the petitioner to deposit the amount of fine, failing which, he shall further undergo one months R.I. 8. With the above observations, the revision petition is hereby partly allowed. *******