Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed by Balwinder Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh challenging the judgment dated january 23, 1990, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby his appeal against the judgment dated December 9, 1988 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot has been dismissed. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner has reduced the sentence awarded to him originally by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to 1-1/2 years. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act. 2. As per prosecution version, on March 2, 1985, a police party comprising of Sadhu Singh ASI alongwith HC Ranjit Singh along with other Constables was going on checking from Village Kot Sukhia to Dhurkot on a path in a government jeep No. PBM-990. When the aforesaid police party reached the Canal bridge of Dhurkot, three persons were seen coming, who were to come across the said bridge. On seeing the police jeep, they tried to retrace their steps. The jeep was stopped and the aforesaid three persons namely Bakhshish Singh, Balwinder Singh and Gurdeep Singh were apprehended. Opium weighing 10 kilograms and 10 grams was found from the possession of the aforesaid three persons. 3. On investigation of the case, the challan was presented but the petitioner has been convicted as aforesaid. 4. I have heard Shri Sandeep Jain, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and with his assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 5. In my considered view, there is no ground to interfere in the conviction order recorded by the learned Courts below. In fact I find that the prosecution has been able to lead cogent evidence whereby the two Courts below have concurrently recorded the order of conviction . No infirmity has been found nor I have been able to find out any illegality in the orders of the Courts below regarding conviction against the petitioner. However, I find that the occurrence of this case has taken place on March 2, 1985 i.e. almost more than 17 years back. The present revision petition has also remained pending in this Court since 1990, i.e. almost for a period of 12 years. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has already suffered a long and protracted trial. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail on February 19, 1990. The present revision petition has also remained pending in this Court since 1990, i.e. almost for a period of 12 years. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has already suffered a long and protracted trial. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail on February 19, 1990. No useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner back to the jail. The petitioner is a young man and not shown to be a previous convict. 6. Under these circumstances, I order that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner be set aside and the petitioner be released on probation. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on probation on his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot with an undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to appear and receive sentence during the said period if and when called upon to do so. 7. With the above modification, the present petition is disposed of. Orders accordingly.