JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Joginder Singh son of Pal Singh was convicted by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patti vide impugned judgment dated 29.7.1988 under Section 9 of the Opium Act, 1878 for allegedly keeping 15 kgs of opium in his possession. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months. He then preferred an appeal and the same also stands dismissed vide impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dated 24.11.1988. Hence, this revision. 2. I have heard Mr. A.S. Sandhu learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.S. Bhandari, learned Deputy Advocate-General, Punjab. 3. Mr. Sandhu has not joined the issue on merits and instead has confined his arguments with respect to reduction in the quantum of sentence only. He submits that the alleged recovery of the contraband was effected way back in the year 1983 when the appellant was of the age of 45 years by now he has already faced the agony of protracted trial of long 21 years. He further submits that the petitioner is not a previous convict, as this fact is mentioned in the judgment of the trial Court itself when the petitioner was heard on the quantum of sentence. He further submits that in case the petitioner is sent to Jail once again at this juncture, it would ruin his life. He then submits that the petitioner remained in custody for about five weeks which includes the period after his appeal was dismissed by the learned appellate court and he was granted bail in the revision petition by this Court. The prayer now made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he should either be released on probation or in the alternative his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 4. Stressing for probation, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Balam Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1985(1) Recent Criminal Reports 568 (P&H) and Sikander Khan v. The State of Punjab, 1986(1) Recent Criminal Reports 208 (P&H). 5. For the alternative prayer, the learned counsel relies upon Iqbal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994(2) Recent Criminal Reports 388 (P&H). 6. 5. For the alternative prayer, the learned counsel relies upon Iqbal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994(2) Recent Criminal Reports 388 (P&H). 6. So far as releasing the petitioner on probation is concerned, I do not agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, I accept his alternative submission. The petitioner has faced this litigation for the last 21 years. This fact is sufficient to take a lenient view with regard to quantum of sentence. As submitted by Mr. Sandhu and not disputed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already undergone a part of the sentence. Iqbal Singhs case (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner squarely covers the case of the petitioner. In the aforesaid case, the recovery was of 20 kgs of opium effected in the year 1983. 7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ends of justice would be adequately met if, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, the substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. It is ordered accordingly. 8. The sentence of fine alongwith default clause shall remain as it is. Resultantly, the present revision petition is dismissed on merits, however, with the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above. Petition dismissed.