JUDGMENT 1. - In this Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C. the petitioner is challenging judgment dated 8.11.1995 passed by Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal No. 15/1993, whereby, the appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the Munsiff and Judl. Magistrate Railmagra in Criminial Case No. 35/1986 dated 18.3.1993 by which the petitioner was convicted for committing offence under Section 4/9 of the of the Opium Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 1,500/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. 2. At the threshold learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case the proceedings was initiated in connection with incident which took place on 2.8.1985 in which 4 kg opium was recovered from the petitioner. In the trial however both the motbir witnesses PW-1 Kanhaiya Lal and PW-2 Madan Lal turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story, so also no other independent witness was there but the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 18.3.1993. Thereafter in appeal. also the appellate Court confirmed the order of conviction. 3. Without challenging the finding of both the Court below learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at this stage it will not be appropriate to send the petitioner to custody for serving out the sentence after more than 18 years from the date of judgment of the trial Court and after 26 years of the date of the incident therefore the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced from six months to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. In support of the submission learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon judgment of this Court, reported in 2002 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1655, Godha Rant v. State of Rajasthan in which the co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that incident is of the year 1982 and more than 19 years have passed and this period of sufficient to exhaust any body mentally physically and economically therefore ends of justice would meet if for offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act the accused-petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 4. 4. While citing the above judgment learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in this case after 18 years it will not be appropriate to send the petitioner in judicial custody therefore sentence awarded to the petitioner for committing offence under Section 4/9, Opium Act may be reduced from six months imprisonment to period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor however opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties have perused the entire record of the case. 7. Admittedly the incident is related to the year 1993. The petitioner was arrested and sent to judicial custody. During trial, however the petitioner was released on bail. After dismissal of his appeal, the petitioner was sent to judicial custody. Thereafter, his application for suspension of sentence was allowed by this Court on 16.11.1995 and he was released by the trial Court. He remained in judicial custody for almost one month but the fact remains that the incident is of the year 1985, therefore, for the reason that,it will not be appropriate at this stage to sent the petitioner to custody for serving out the remaining sentence after more than 18 years from the date of the judgment of the trial Court and after 26 years of the date of the incident, I deem it just and proper to follow the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Godha Rain's case (supra), in which following adjudication was made: "10. After perusing the record, it appears that the accused-petitioner has remained in jail from 16.9.1982 to 18.9.1982 and 19.4.1991 to 7.5.1991. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a case reported in 1987 R.C.C. 22, Narshingh v. State of Rajasthan . In that case 26 Kgs. Opium was recovered and looking to the fact that 16 years have passed, the accused-petitioners in that case were sentenced to the period already undergone by them by this Court but the order of fine was separately maintained. 11. In that case 26 Kgs. Opium was recovered and looking to the fact that 16 years have passed, the accused-petitioners in that case were sentenced to the period already undergone by them by this Court but the order of fine was separately maintained. 11. Looking to the fact that the accused-petitioner has remained in jail from 16.9.1982 to 18.9.1982 and 19.4.1991 to 7.5.1991 and looking to the fact that the incident took place on 16.9.1982 and more than 19 years have passed and this period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically, therefore, ends of justice would be met if for offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act the accused-petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him." 8. While following the aforesaid judgment, the revision petition filed by the accused-petitioner Radhey Shyam is hereby partly allowed and while maintaining conviction of the petitioner under Section 4/9 Opium Act the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate Railmagra in Criminal Case No. 35/1986 dated 18.3.1993 and confirmed by Sessions Judge, Rajsamand vide Judgment dated 8.11.1995 passed in Criminal Appeal No 15/1993 is hereby reduced from six months simple imprisonment to period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. The penalty of fine of Rs. 1,500/- is however maintained. Since the accused-petitioner is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall automatically stand discharged upon depositing the amount of fine, as ordered by the trial Court.Revision partly allowed. *******