Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. This revision has been directed against the order of conviction and sentence recorded by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samrala dated 18th October, 1986, vide which the petitioner was held guilty under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced to undergo two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/- or in default to further undergo R.I. for six months. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, which was dismissed on 17th of December, 1987. 2. There is no need at all to mention the detailed facts of the case but for to say that opium weighing 2 Kgs. and 750 gms. was recovered from the possession of the petitioner on 17th of August, 1984 and pursuant to the trial of the petitioner under Section 9 of the Opium Act, he was held guilty of the charge framed against him. 3. Mr. Bipan Ghai, learned Counsel representing the petitioner on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Sawinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 163: [2000(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 597 (Pb. & Hry.)] contends that the speedy trial is the right of the petitioner and if for some reasons or the other, the same is not granted to the petitioner and meanwhile several years have gone by, it will be in fitness of things to bind down the petitioner to show good behaviour and keep peace under the provisions of Probations of Offenders Act or to reduce the sentence. 4. In Sawinder Singhs case (supra), on account of 12 years having gone by during the pendency of the trial, the sentence of the petitioner in the said case was reduced to the period already undergone by him. It may be mentioned here that he was prosecuted and convicted under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. To the same effect petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in Behari Lal v. State of (U.T.) Chandigarh, 2000(1) RCR 222: [2000(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 832 (Pb. & Hry.)]. All that requires to be mentioned here is that in Behari Lals case (supra), the petitioner in the said case was tried under Sections 16(l)(a)(i) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 5. & Hry.)]. All that requires to be mentioned here is that in Behari Lals case (supra), the petitioner in the said case was tried under Sections 16(l)(a)(i) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 5. In this case, the petitioner was twenty years of age at the time of commission of crime and is a first offender. He has undergone protracted trial for about fifteen years and he has already undergone substantive sentence of four and a half months. Following the law laid down in Sawinder Singhs case (supra) and Behari Lals case (supra), while upholding the order of conviction against the petitioner, I reduce the sentence to one already undergone by him. The fine is, however, enhanced from Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 5000/ -. If the petitioner does not pay the fine within three months from the date C.J.M., Ludhiana receives the certified copy of this order, then the petitioner shall undergo the sentence imposed upon him by the Courts below. This revision is partly allowed.