JUDGMENT 1. - Admit. The learned counsel for the petitioner & learned Public Prosecutor agree that the revision petition may be disposed of at this stage, as the learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the conviction and the restricted argument only on the question of sentence. Both the courts below have found the petitioner guilt for the offence under section 4/9 of Opium Act and he was sentenced to 4 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine be was to undergo 15 days R.I. 2. The learned counsel states that the conviction of the petitioner u.s 4/9 of the Opium Act was rightly recorded and after going through the judgment of the courts below I am also convinced that the conviction of the petitioner under section 4/9 of the Opium Act has been properly recorded by proper appreciation of evidence. 3. The next contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner has been facing trial for the last 10 years and the charge against the petitioner was that 900 gms of opium was recovered from him. It is contended that in the year 1985 NDPS Act was enacted and as such the matter was dealt with by the learned trial court under the Opium Act. He further submits that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for about 25 days and the period undergone by him shall meet the ends of justice. 4. Reliance is placed on Bherulal v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 RCC 378 . The occurrence relates to January 27, 1983 and 900 gms of opium is said to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. More than 10 years have passed since the date of occurrence. The pendency of criminal trial for a long period itself is a matter of great mental torture to the accused, besides physical inconvenience and monetary loss that may be caused to him. The petitioner remained in custody for the last 25 days as stated by the learned counsel. He is 60 years of age and there is nothing on the record that he was involved subsequently in any similar offence. 5. Therefore, taking into consideration all the facts & circumstances, I think it proper that the sentence of imprisonment may he reduced to the period already undergone by him. It is reduced accordingly. He is 60 years of age and there is nothing on the record that he was involved subsequently in any similar offence. 5. Therefore, taking into consideration all the facts & circumstances, I think it proper that the sentence of imprisonment may he reduced to the period already undergone by him. It is reduced accordingly. The sentence of fine is maintained and in the event of non-payment of the fine the petitioner will undergo the sentence awarded by the learned Judge, Special Court for Communal Riot & Matters (Additional Sessions Judge) Tonk. 6. The revision is partly allowed as indicated above. The petitioner shall be released forthwith, as the learned counsel gives out that the fine has been deposited.Revision partly allowed. *******