U. P. S. CHAUHAN, J. ( 1 ) SMT. Surendra Kaur, applicant No. 1, is the wife of Mehar Singh applicant No. 2, Both the applicants have been convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act and they were sentenced to 3 years R. I. each together with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were required to undergo 6 months imprisonment by the III Addi. Munsif-Magistrate, Pilibhit on 10-2-1986. Against the conviction and sentence so recorded, the applicants preferred Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1986, which was dismissed on 18-3-1986 by the Sessions Judge, Pilibhit. The present revision is the out come of the aforesaid conviction and sentence and was filed in this Court on 14-5-1986. It was admitted on the question of sentence, but the court while allowing the applicants to be released on bail imposed a condition that they would be released on bail provided the amount of fine as imposed on them is deposited. The applicant No. 1 was a lady and somehow or the other the fine of Rs. 3,000/- as imposed on her was deposited but fine of Rs. 3,000/- as was imposed on applicantnb. 2 (Mehar Singh) could not be deposited as a result whereof he could not be released on bail. He again moved this court for relaxation in the condition for de positing the fine and this court vide its order dated 15-4-1988 lifted the pre-condition of depositing of fine for being released on bail and it was after this that the applicant No. 2 could be released. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the Excise inspector received an information from an informant on S-S-1981 that some contra bandy opium was kept in the house of Mehar Singh in village Bilsanda, District Pilibhit. On getting this information, the Excise Inspector proceeded after taking search warrant. On his reaching village Bilsanda, the applicant ran away from the house and could not be apprehended but his wife was in the house and in her presence a search was made and opium to the extent of 4 Kgs. 500 grams was recovered. The Excise Inspector on testing the same found to be the opium. ( 3 ) BOTH the courts below have recorded the Concurrent finding of fact relating to the guilt of the applicants. 500 grams was recovered. The Excise Inspector on testing the same found to be the opium. ( 3 ) BOTH the courts below have recorded the Concurrent finding of fact relating to the guilt of the applicants. Apart from this, revision itself has been admitted on the question of sentence, I need not enter into, the merit of the matter. ( 4 ) HEARNED learned counsel for the applicants and learned Addi. Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel, for the applicants submits that the applicant No. 2 Mehar Singh has undergone a term of imprisonment for a Period of little over two year. Applicant No. 1 is his wife and through she has been convicted for the offence but in fact she, had no hand in the offence and was not contributory to the offence. He submit that the occuirence is as back as of 5-5-1986 and the Trial Court recorded the conviction on 10-2-1986 and since then the matter is pending in one court or other. In the facts of the present cases it would be too harsh to send the applicants to prison to send out the sentence as imposed on them after lapse of so many years. Apart from it, the applicants are the persons ridden with poverty. This fact established that he could not manage the fund to deposit the penalty of Rs. 3000/-as an effect whereof he could not be released on bail. ( 5 ) I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants, that in the facts and circumstances of the present case it would work harsh if the applicants are sent to prison for serving out the stop the sentence. Applicant No. 2 has already served over two years of imprisonment which is sufficient so far as his guilds concerned. Applicant No. 1 is a lady, having no active participation in the offence she is entitled for liberal altitude. In these circumstances I feel that the ends of justice would better served if the sentence as imposed to the applicants is reduced to that already undergone and the sentence of fine as imposed On applicant No. 2 is set aside but the sentence of fine as imposed on her is maintained which she has already deposited. In these circumstances I feel that the ends of justice would better served if the sentence as imposed to the applicants is reduced to that already undergone and the sentence of fine as imposed On applicant No. 2 is set aside but the sentence of fine as imposed on her is maintained which she has already deposited. The sentence of imprisonment on Smt. Surendra Kaur who is wife of applicant No. 2, according to the learned counsel for the applicant is served for about 2 months. So far as the applicant No. 1 is concerned, a long period of litigation and small sentence would be sufficient deterrent as she had no active participation in the crime. I accordingly reduce the sentence as imposed on applicants to that already undergone. The sentence of fine as imposed on the applicant No. 2 having regard to his poverty is set aside, but the sentence of fine as imposed on applicant No. 1 is maintained. The applicants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and sureties shall stand discharged. ( 6 ) WITH the above direction regarding modification in sentence, I dismiss this revision, while maintaining the conviction. .