JUDGMENT 1. - Bherulal, the petitioner in this revision, was prosecuted for offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act on the allegations that on 18th May, 1974 he was found in possession of 7 kg 300 gm of opium. The Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur vide his judgment dated 21st November, 1978 convicted the petitioner of the said offence and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in the event of failure to pay the fine, to further undergo two month's simple imprisonment. 2. During the pendency of the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur, the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur passed an order dated 24th November, 1979 whereby in exercise of his powers under Section 391, Cr. P.C., the Sessions Judge directed the Judicial Magistrate to record additional evidence on the point whether the seal impression with which the sample for chemical examination was sealed was forwarded to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur or not and whether the seal with which the sample packet was sealed corresponded to the aforesaid seal impression. The petitioner filed S.B. Criminal Revision No. 51 of 1980 against the said order of the learned Sessions Judge and the said revision was dismissed by this Court by its order dated 17th March, 1980 on the view that the Sessions Judge had only allowed additional evidence to be led to the effect as to what specimen of seal impressions were sent to the Chemical Examiner and has not allowed additional evidence to be led as to how the sample was dealt with during the time of its seizure till it reached the office of the Chemical Examiner. Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of Gurumukh Das PW-8. After considering the said additional evidence, the Sessions Judge decided the appeal by his judgment dated May 19, 1981 whereby the conviction of the petitioner under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act was maintained 'but the sentence was reduced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Sentence of fine was, however, maintained. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that while recording the additional evidence in pursuance of the directions given by the learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated Nov. Sentence of fine was, however, maintained. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that while recording the additional evidence in pursuance of the directions given by the learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated Nov. 24, 1979, the Judicial Magistrate also recorded evidence on the question as to how the sample was dealt with during the time when it was seized and sealed till it reached the office of the chemical Examiner and that the said evidence was in admissible in view of the decision of this Court dated 17th March, 1980. There is no substance in this contention because the only evidence that has been adduced is that of Gurumukhdas, PW-8, an L.D.C. in the receipt-section of the State Forensic Laboratory, Jaipur, who has stated that alongwith the sample, the specimen of the seal was received and the specimen of the seal was compared with the seal on the packet and was found to tally. In other words, the additional evidence, that has been recorded, is only with regard to the fact whether the specimen of the seal was sent separately or not and whether it tallied with the seal on the packet. The Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence, has found that the prosecution had examined four witnesses viz., Bhopal Singh, PW-7, who has stated that on 18th April, 1974 he had sent the sample alongwith other papers to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur from Police Station, Jhanwar; Vijaydan, PW 3 who had carried the sample from Police Station, Jhanwar on 18th April, 1974 to the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur; Nemichand, PW-4 who has posted as Head-Constable in the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur, who had carried the sample to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and deposited the same there and Gurumukhdas, PW-8, who compared the seal on the packet with the specimen seal and found it to be the same. 4. The Sessions Judge has held that from the evidence of all the four witnesses it is established that the sample which was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory was received with seals intact in the Laboratory. 5. 4. The Sessions Judge has held that from the evidence of all the four witnesses it is established that the sample which was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory was received with seals intact in the Laboratory. 5. Moreover, the Sessions Judge has observed that apart from the report of the Chemical Examiner, the evidence of Govind Gurnani, PW-6, Inspector in the Central Narcotics Department, who has stated that the stuff which was recovered, on smelling and tasting, was found to be opium. Bherulal, PW-1, Bhawanisingh PW-2 and Yashpal Singh, PW-5 have also sated that the material recovered was opium. Relying upon the decision in Annram v. The State , the Sessions Judge has held that even if the chemical examination was not necessary, on the basis of the evidence it could be said that the stuff which was recovered was opium. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to challenge this finding of the Sessions Judge and the arguments which have been advanced by him are the same as those advanced in Criminal Revision No. 186/81 decided today. The said submissions have been considered by me in the said case and for the same reasons, the said submissions cannot be accepted. 7. In my view, therefore, no ground is made out for interfering with the finding recorded by the Sessions Judge with regard to the conviction of the petitioners under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act. 8. On the matter of sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the case relates to the year 1974 and more than 15 years have elapsed. It has also been urged that the petitioner has remained in custody for 23 days. The learned counsel has submitted that a lenient view may be taken and the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone. Taking into consideration the fact that the incident relates to the year 1974 and more than 15 years have elapsed. I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone. It is reduced accordingly. The sentence of fine is, however, maintained and in the event of non-payment of fine, the petitioners will further undergo two months' simple imprisonment as directed by the Court below. 9. The revision is partly allowed to this extent.Revision partly allowed. *******