Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. This revision has been directed against the order of conviction and sentence recorded by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, dated 8th of August. 1987. Holding the petitioner guilty for an offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act and ordering him to undergo R.I. for 18 months as also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for 3 months. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence met with partial success as the sentence was reduced from 18 months to one year R.I. 2. Briefly, facts of the case reveal that Sita Ram Inspector in the presence of other police officials apprehended the petitioner in the area of Tarn Taran Road on suspicion. On his personal search 5 kgs of opium, wrapped in glazed paper was recovered. 3. In its endeavour to bring home the offence against the petitioner, the prosecution examined Inspector Sita Ram as PW-1 and Baldev Raj as PW-2. The prosecution tendered into evidence report of the Chemical Examiner PE and affidavits of formal witnesses Ex. PF and PG. 4. All that has been contended in support of this petition is that the matter pertains to October 1983 and a period of almost 17 years have gone by. The petitioner was the first offender and was 40 years of age at the time of occurrence. He has already undergone protracted trial spanned over a period of 17 years and therefore, sentence imposed upon the petitioner be reduced to one already undergone by him. 5. The contention of the learned counsel needs to be met only half way through. It is, no doubt, true that the petitioner has undergone a protracted trial for about 17 years and happens to be a first offender but the fact that huge quantity of opium weighing 5kg. was recovered from his person cannot be ignored. Interest of justice in view of the court would be amply met if the sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the Courts below is reduced to nine months. So ordered. 6. This revision is, thus, partly allowed. As mentioned above, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 9 of the Opium Act, he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of nine months. So ordered. 6. This revision is, thus, partly allowed. As mentioned above, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 9 of the Opium Act, he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of nine months. The petitioner would pay the fine as imposed by the Courts below and would suffer the consequences for not payment thereof.