Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Petitioner Sarup Singh stands convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patti (District Amritsar) vide impugned document dated 11.5.1988 under Section 9 of the Opium Act (for short, the Act) for allegedly keeping in his conscious possession 4 kgs. of opium on 29.11.1983 when he was apprehended by ASI Harbans Singh, who was present at a particular juncture alongwith other police officials. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default thereof to further suffer RI for six months. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal but the same has also been dismissed on merits vide impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dated 19.1.1990. However, the substantive sentence of two years was reduced to one year with no change in the order of sentence of fine or the default clause. Hence this revision. 2. Mr. Hundal does not join issue on merits of the case and confines his arguments with regard to quantum of sentence only. 3. Dwelling upon his arguments on this aspect, Mr. Hundal submits that the petitioner was of the age of 30 years at the time of alleged recovery i.e. in 1983, as is evident from the charge-sheet and as such by now he has faced the ordeal of protracted trial for the last 21 years; that he is not a previous convict; that whole of the family, which includes the children, is dependent upon the petitioner, he being sole bread earner; that by now the petitioner is well settled in his life and during this interRegulation ms, he has not indulged in any nefarious activity. The learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner, whose sentence has already been reduced by half by the learned Appellate Court itself, has remained in custody for more than 2 months, as he was granted bail by the trial Court after he remained in the jail for about a month and after which also he remained in custody for one month after his bail was cancelled; that thereafter he was ordered to be released on bail by this Court at the time of admission of the present revision petition; that even after he got bail from this Court, he could not furnish the requisite bonds for a considerable period and in this way his whole detention period comes to 2 months and a few odd days. Stressing his arguments, Mr. Hundal relies upon the latest decision in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 198, wherein this Court while relying upon another decision in Iqbal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994(2) RCR (Cri.) 388 (P&H) had reduced the sentence of the accused (petitioner) to the period already undergone. In the said case the recovery of opium was heavier than in the instant case and the petitioner had remained in for about five weeks only. 4. The learned State Counsel has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitting that since the recovery is heavy, no lenient view should be taken regarding quantum of sentence. 5. After giving my thoughtful considerations to all the contentions raised by Mr. Hundal, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves a sympathetic tilt qua sentence in this case keeping in view the fact that he has faced the ordeal of protracted trial for 21 years and has already remained in custody for two months and a few days. The decision in Joginder singhs case (supra) squarely covers the case of the petitioner. 6. Consequently, while maintaining conviction of the petitioner, I hereby reduce his substantive sentence to the period already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine and the default clause, as ordered by the trial Court, shall remain in tact. 7. The net result is that the instant appeal stands dismissed on merits except with the modification in quantum of sentence as indicated above.