ORDER V.K. Bali, J. (Oral) - This revision has been directed against order of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam, dated June 11, 1987 holding petitioner guilty under Section 9 of the Opium Act and ordering him to undergo RI for two years as also to pay fine of Rs. 200/- or in default thereof, to further undergo RI for two months as also order dated September 1, 1988 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which his appeal against the order aforesaid was dismissed. 2. Briefly put, the prosecution case has been that on June 4, 1985 SI Sumand Singh of Police Station, Sunam was going towards village Chhahar in a Government jeep along with other police officials. When the police party reached on the bridge of a canal near village Chhahar, petitioner was noticed coming on the canal bank. On seeing the police party, he tried to turn back which aroused suspicion and he was apprehended. His search was effected and from the bag that he was carrying, opium wrapped in a glazed paper, weighing 8 Kgs. was recovered. 10 Grams of opium was separated as sample and sealed in a small tin. Rest of the opium was also put in a tin and sealed with seal bearing impression "SS". Recovery memo was prepared. Intimation Ex.PC was sent to the police station, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PC/1 was recorded. Sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner, who, vide report Ex.PE, found that the contents of sample constituted opium. 3. In order to bring home the offence against the petitioner, prosecution examined PW1 Lal Chand ASI and Inspector Sumand Singh. These two witnesses fully supported the prosecution case. 4. When examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, petitioner, while denying the incriminating material put to him, stated that no opium was recovered from his possession. In fact, he was brought from village Dharamgarh in the presence of Harbhajan Singh. Balbir Singh, Ex. Head Constable was also present in the police station. He dealt in opium. No action was taken against Balbir Singh and he was let off after money was obtained from him and in his place, petitioner was involved in a false case. He, however, examined MHC Bhim Sain as DW1. 5. Nothing at all has been urged on the merits of the case. He dealt in opium. No action was taken against Balbir Singh and he was let off after money was obtained from him and in his place, petitioner was involved in a false case. He, however, examined MHC Bhim Sain as DW1. 5. Nothing at all has been urged on the merits of the case. All that has, thus, been contended is that occurrence pertains to the year 1985 and a period of more than 15 years has gone by and that petitioner was a first offender and was 30 years of age at the time of commission of crime and, therefore, lenient view should be taken and petitioner be let off on probation under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. 6. The contention of learned counsel cannot be accepted in its entirety. It is a case of recovery of 8 Kgs. of opium. However, inasmuch as the petitioner has undergone an agony of prolonged trial, spanned over a period of fifteen years, interest of justice would be fully met if sentence is reduced to one year. Ordered accordingly. This revision is partly allowed. As mentioned above petitioner shall undergo RI for one year and shall also pay the fine, as imposed by the courts below, failing which he will have to undergo the sentence as ordered by the courts below. Revision partly allowed.