Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. This revision has been directed against order of conviction and sentence, dated November 22, 1986, recorded by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga, vide which the petitioner herein was held guilty under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1500/-, or in default thereof, to further undergo RI for three months. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was, however, dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot on July 3, 1987. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case reveal that on August 18, 1983, ASI Achhar Ram was coming back from the vegetable market after patrol duty to the police station along with other police officials. When the police party reached at a distance of about 100 yards from Bhag Cinema, petitioner came there on pucca road from the side of City. On seeing the police party, he tried to turn back. On suspicion, he was stopped and searched. Opium was recovered from the gunny bag carried by the petitioner. On weighing, it was found 10 kgs. 20 grams of opium was taken out as sample. The sample and remaining opium were put into separate parcels and sealed with seal bearing impression `AR. Intimation was sent to the police station, on the basis of which FIR was registered. 3. In its endeavour to bring home the offence against the petitioner, prosecution examined Jagdish Parshad P.W.1, HC Darshan Singh P.W.2, Lakha Singh Constable, P.W.3 and Narinder Pal, P.W.4. 4. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., petitioner, while denying the incriminating material put to him, also denied the allegations made against him and in defence, produced D.W.1 Parminder Singh and D.W.2 Surjit Singh. 5. Mr. Ghai, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his arguments only to the quantum of sentence and states that trial in this case started way back in 1983. A period of 17 years has gone by and at that time, maximum punishment for the offence committed by the petitioner was three years. 6. In view of the submission of learned counsel, I am of the considered view, that ends of justice would be better served if sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to one and half years. So ordered. He is, thus, ordered to undergo RI for a period of one and half years. 6. In view of the submission of learned counsel, I am of the considered view, that ends of justice would be better served if sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to one and half years. So ordered. He is, thus, ordered to undergo RI for a period of one and half years. Fine, as ordered by the courts below, shall be paid by the petitioner, failing which petitioner shall have to undergo the sentence, as imposed by the courts below. 7. This revision is disposed of accordingly.