Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. This revision has been directed against order of conviction and sentence dated 22.3.1988 recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patti, vide which petitioner herein was held guilty under Section 9 of the Opium Act, 1978 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for three months. In appeal, the order of conviction and sentence was up held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide judgment dated 26.9.1988. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case has been that on 22.11.1984, ASI Jawahar Lal along with other police officials was going towards the side of village Sandhwa Saidon for patrolling. When they were going on the road outside the abadi for village Saidon, petitioner, Lassa Singh was seen coming from the side of Village Jaur Singh Wala wrapping a `Khes. On seeing the police party, he tried to slip but was apprehended. On his personal search, ASI Jawahar Lal recovered one Jhola containing opium wrapped in glazed paper. On weighing, it was found to be 5 Kgs. Sample of 10 grams was separated and the remaining was put in parcel Ex. P1. Parcels were sealed with the seal bearing letters `JL and taken in possession vide recovery memo Ex. PA. Ruqa Ex. PB was sent to the police station, on the basis of which F.I.R. Ex. PB/1 was recorded. 3. The prosecution, in support of its case examined Constable Jal Pal, PW 1, Constable Gurbachan Singh, PW2, ASI Jawahar Lal, PW3 and HC Jaswinder Singh, PW4. It also tendered in evidence the report of the Chemical Examiners Ex.PD. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not touched the merits of the case and has prayed that the sentence be reduced to the one already undergone by the petitioner for the reason that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1984 and a period of more than 16 years has gone by and that in the process, the petitioner has suffered a protracted trial. It is further contended by learned counsel that petitioner is a first offender and should not be asked to serve the jail sentence at this stage. He is 72 years of age now. It is further contended by learned counsel that petitioner is a first offender and should not be asked to serve the jail sentence at this stage. He is 72 years of age now. In support of his above stated contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sawinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 163: [2000(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 597 (Pb. & Hry.)], the contention of the learned counsel can only be accepted half way through. It is a case of recovery of 5 kgs. of opium and, this Court is of the view that interest of justice would be served if the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to six months and payment of fine is maintained. Ordered accordingly. In default of payment of fine, however, the petitioner shall undergo the sentence as imposed by the court below. This revision is, thus, partly allowed.