JUDGMENT 1. - Accused Heeralal was convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act and was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months like imprisonment, by the learned Munsif' and Judicial Magistrate, Begun by his judgment dated June 2, 1976. The accused went in appeal which was heard and decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction & sentence of the accused were maintained. He has now come up in revision. 2. In view of the concurrent findings of the courts below Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the accused, did not challenge the conviction.' The only submission made by him is in respect of the sentence. It was submitted that only 3 kg. and 200 Kms. contraband opium was found in possession of the accused. The offence was committed long back in the year 1979. Looking to the long interval it would not be proper to resend the accused to jail. It was submitted that the sentence is very harsh and excessive. The accused has already remained in jail for 69 days. As such, the sentence of imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 3. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence was of serious nature effecting the revenue of the State and no leniency is, therefore, called for. 4. I have taken the respective submissions into consideration. Admittedly the offence was committed in January, 1976. 3 Kgs. and 200 Gms. of contraband opium was found in possession of the accused. The accused has remained in custody from 2-6-1976 to 4-6-1976 and 26-4-1979 to 29-6-79, i.e. for 69 days in jail. Looking to the long interval, it would not be proper to resend the accused into jail where he is likely to come in contact with the personal criminals. It would not be improper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him. 5. In the result the revision of accused Heeralal is partly allowed. This conviction under Section 9 of the Opium Act is maintained but the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from two years to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine is maintained. 5. In the result the revision of accused Heeralal is partly allowed. This conviction under Section 9 of the Opium Act is maintained but the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from two years to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine is maintained. The accused is allowed two months time to pay the fine in the trial court failing which the learned Magistrate will proceed against him according to law.Revision partly allowed. *******