Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. This revision has been directed against the order of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna, who vide his order dated 15th of October, 1987, convicted the petitioner herein under Section 9 of the Opium Act and ordered him to undergo R.I. for a period of two years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment of fine to further under R.I. for four months. Aggrieved, the petitioner carried an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana which met with no success whatsoever and the same was dismissed vide order dated 15th of July, 1988. 2. Briefly, the prosecution case has been that on 22nd of May, 1985 ASI Tale Ram along with ASl Ram Kumar and Constables Surjit Singh and Lachhman Singh was going to village Gajipur on patrol duty from the side of village Chak and when the police party reached in the area of village Gajipur, from where a path emerges for village Sir Krishan Singh, petitioner was found coming from the side of the said village and seeing the police party, he suddenly turned back. On suspicion he was stopped. On his personal search 10 killos and 510 grams of opium was recovered from the empty bag he was carrying. After drawing a sample of 10 grams, the sample and the remaining opium was separately sealed into two parcels which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PA. On the basis of ruqa Ex. PC, formal FIR Ex. PC/ 1 came to be recorded at police Station, Sadar, Khanna under Section 9 of the opium Act. 3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined ASI Ram Kumar as PWI and ASI Tale Ram as PW2. Affidavits Ex. PE of countable Joginder Singh and AMHC Pran Nath were also tendered into evidence. 4. In support of this revision, all that has been argued by the learned Counsel representing the petitioner is that occurrence pertains to the year 1985. The petitioner at that time was 65 years of age and is now an old man of 80 years . For possession of over 10 kgs of opium, he has been given the maximum sentence as provided under Act. On the facts aforesaid, all that has been argued before me is that the petitioner of Offenders Act, 1958. 5. The petitioner at that time was 65 years of age and is now an old man of 80 years . For possession of over 10 kgs of opium, he has been given the maximum sentence as provided under Act. On the facts aforesaid, all that has been argued before me is that the petitioner of Offenders Act, 1958. 5. It is no doubt, true that the petitioner at the time of commission of crime was 65 years of age and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years and that by now the petitioner should be about 80 years of age. Looking into the gravity of offence i.e recovery of huge quantity of opium, in my view, he cannot be let off on probation even though a case for reduction of sentence is made out. In the totality of the facts even though a case for reduction of sentence is made out. In the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, while upholding the order of conviction against the petitioner , I reduce the sentence from two year R. I.. The order of payment of fine is maintained and so would be the consequeance of the non - payment there of This revision, is, thus, party allowed. Revision partly allowed.