Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. This revision has been directed against order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana, dated July 17, 1987, whereby Lakhi Ram-petitioner herein was held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 16(l)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1961 and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default thereof to further undergo RI for two months. The appeal, that came to be filed against the order of conviction and sentence, as referred to above, was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, vide order dated June 1, 1988. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case had been that on January 21, 1984 Jagat Singh, ASI along with other police officials was present near Power House, Gohana in connection with checking of crime. Petitioner was seen coming from Gohana side, who, on seeing the police party, moved back. However, on suspicion, he was apprehended and on search, he was found carrying 400 gms of charas in a glazed paper. Five grams of Charas was taken out as sample as well as remaining bulk was sealed in separate parcels. After completion of investigation, as referred to above, petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 16(l) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1961. 3. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined Jagdish Chand HC, PW 1, Mata Din Constable, PW2, Gurbachan Singh ASI, PW3, Jagat Singh, SI, PW4 and Chand Ram Inspector, PW5. 4. When examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C., petitioner denied the incriminating material put to him and pleaded false implication. He examined DW1 Rameshwar in his defence evidence. 5. All that could be urged in support of this revision during the course of arguments, by learned counsel for the petitioner is that when apprehended on January 21, 1984, petitioner was 72 years of age and after this protracted trial of over 16 years, petitioner is about 88 years of age. Petitioner as a first offender and sending him to serve jail term at this stage would serve no purpose. 6. Insofar as the facts, as have been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, as mentioned above, are concerned, there is no denial to the same. Petitioner as a first offender and sending him to serve jail term at this stage would serve no purpose. 6. Insofar as the facts, as have been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, as mentioned above, are concerned, there is no denial to the same. No doubt, 400 gms of Charas was recovered from the petitioner but it is worthwhile to mention that same was in the year 1984 and petitioner was charged and prosecuted under Section 16(l) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act. The maximum punishment prescribed for such an offence is three years. The ends of justice, in view of this Court, would be served of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the one already undergone by him It requires to be mentioned here that appellate court pronounced orders against the petitioner while dismissing his appeal on June 1, 1988 and it is by order dated August 24, 1988 that he was granted bail by this Court. In the manner aforesaid, petitioner has already undergone sentence for a period of two months and atleast 24 days. 7. In totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, while maintaining the order of conviction against the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a) of the Excise Act, this Court reduces imposed the sentence to already undergone from the one imposed upon him However, fine imposed by the by the trial Court is upheld and so are the consequences of non payment thereof.