Judgment Jamuar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against an order passed by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Chaibassa, dated 5th July 1950, acquitting the respondent, Mangal Singh, who was tried under Sections 279, 338 and 304A, Penal Code. 2. The following facts led to the trial of the respondent. On 30th November 1949, the respondent was the driver of a bus whose No. was BRS 570 and which was plying on the Chai-cassa-Kathbhari Road. At some time between 4-30 and 5 in the afternoon of that date, the bus left Chaibassa. There were a number of passengers in the bus. After going for a distance of 3 or 4 miles, a signal was made by one Mathura Ho (P. W. 2), who was the Kolhan Inspector in the Revenue Department, to stop the bus. This Inspector said that at the time he was going home on a cycle after Court hours along the Kathbhari Road, he heard the sound of a bus coming. He wanted to catch the bus, as it was getting late. The witness said that the bus was going with great speed, and two of the wheels went inside a nala which, was by the side of the road. The bus appears to have got sut of this nala and come on the road, & then it capsized with the four wheels upwards. The result of this incident was that one passenger named Ram Prasad Mallah received such" severe injuries that he died at the spot; while another passenger, Onkar Sharma, had a bone of his spine broken, and several other passengers were injured. A witness, Dogar Bari (P. W. 1), happened to be passing along that road on a cycle, immediately after this incident. He deposed that he noticed a bus lying upside down with its wheels upwards and passengers inside it. He found the Kolhan Inspector, Mathura Ho, there, and this Inspector asked the witness to go to the Kolhan Police Station and inform the police there. Dogar Bari went to the police station, and reported the matter to the officer in charge. This officer, whose name is S. A. Ghaffor (P. W. 6), registered a case, and immediately proceeded to the spot. He found the bus in question lying capsized in the middle of the road near village Panpara. Dogar Bari went to the police station, and reported the matter to the officer in charge. This officer, whose name is S. A. Ghaffor (P. W. 6), registered a case, and immediately proceeded to the spot. He found the bus in question lying capsized in the middle of the road near village Panpara. He stated that the body of the bus was smashed, and all the four wheels were pointing upwards. He found one man lying dead inside the bus, and he held inquest upon the dead body. 3. That the respondent was driving the bus in question that afternoon is admitted. It may be mentioned here that the bus was examined by J. P. Sinha (P. W. 11), who is a Motor Vehicles Inspector, & this witness stated that the hand-brake of the bus was ineffective, the foot-brake was defective, and the rod and drag link were loose. He deposed that these defects could not have been due to the accident. Clearly, these defects were present even before this accident. The respondent was undoubtedly driving the bus with these defects, and the evidence discloses that he was driving it with great speed. When the bus was signalled to stop for a passenger, the respondent tried to stop it, and attempted to apply the foot-brakes, but in vain. Five of the injured passengers were examined at the trial, and their evidence discloses that the respondent was driving the defective bus at a great speed. One of these witnesses, namely, Onker Mul Sharma (P. W. 15), stated that he and some of the other passengers had even asked the driver to drive the bus slowly; but evidently their request went unheeded: The evidence of this witness further is that the driver tried to stop the bus, when it was signalled to stop, and applied the brake; but he could not control the bus. The bus swerved to the right and then to the left, and then it turned upside down. The further evidence is that the road was all clear and straight, and there was no traffic upon it. 4. The bus swerved to the right and then to the left, and then it turned upside down. The further evidence is that the road was all clear and straight, and there was no traffic upon it. 4. The Motor Vehicle Inspector (P. W. 11), who had inspected the bus at the place where the incident took place, further gave details of the damage, and stated that the body of the bus along with the drivers cabin was completely smashed to pieces, and the wind sill was also smashed to pieces. He had found the hand-brake ineffective, as it had no connection with the wheels. In my opinion, the damage found to have been done to the bus is a circumstance supporting the evidence of the witnesses that the bus was being driven at a high speed. 5. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent on the ground that, according to his view, the only evidence against the respondent was that he was driving the bus at a great speed, and that this alone was not sufficient for recording a conviction under any of the three charges framed against the respondent. In my judgment, his view cannot be supported. The broad circumstances are that the respondent was driving the bus with the defects already stated, and that he was driving it at such a high speed that, when he made an attempt to apply the foot-brakes on being signalled to stop, he was completely unable to control it. Two of the wheels had already gone into a nala by the side of the road. The bus, after having swerved to the right and to the left, ultimately capsized on the road with such damage as has been referred to above. It is upon all these circumstances that it has to be seen whether the respondent can be convicted under the charges framed against him. It is true that all the three sections under which the respondent was charged speak of rash and negligent act. It is upon all these circumstances that it has to be seen whether the respondent can be convicted under the charges framed against him. It is true that all the three sections under which the respondent was charged speak of rash and negligent act. Section 279 punishes the offence of driving a vehicle in a manner "so rash cr negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other per-son; Sec.338 punishes a person who causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act "so rashly and negligently as to endanger human life"; and Section 304 A provides the punishment for causing the death of any person "by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide". Culpable rashness and culpable negligence have been very aptly explained by Holloway J. in the case of -- In re Nidamarti Nagabhushanam, 7 Mad HCR 119. This judgment of Holloway J. was approved by the Chief Court of the Punjab as also by the Calcutta High Court in --Empress V/s. Ketabadi Mundal, 4 Cal 764. Holloway J. stated as follows: "Culpable rashness is acting with consciousness that mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that, they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precaution to prevent their happening. "The insurability arises from acting despite of the consciousness. "Culpable negligence is acting without consciousness that illegal or mischievous effects will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent on him, and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness. "The imputability arises from the neglect fir the civil duty of circumspection." I am, therefore, of the view that the respondent ought to be found to have committed the offences for which he had been charged. 6 Mr. Anwar Ahmad, who appeared for the respondent, however, contended that the respondent, having already been tried and convicted for an offence under Section 121, Motor Vehicles Act, ought not to be convicted either under Sec.279, 338 or 304 A, Penal Code. Sec.121, Motor Vehicles Act punishes a person who drives a defective motor vehicle. 6 Mr. Anwar Ahmad, who appeared for the respondent, however, contended that the respondent, having already been tried and convicted for an offence under Section 121, Motor Vehicles Act, ought not to be convicted either under Sec.279, 338 or 304 A, Penal Code. Sec.121, Motor Vehicles Act punishes a person who drives a defective motor vehicle. It is true that the respondent had been tried and convicted under Sec.121, Motor Vehicles Act; but, having regard to Sub-section (2) of Section 403, Criminal P. C., in my opinion, that conviction will not stand in the way of the conviction which I propose to record in this case. It may be stated that this objection does not appear to have been taken in the trial Court on behalf of the respondent. 7. For these reasons, I would allow this appeal, and convict the respondent under Sections 304 A, 338 and 279, Penal Code. I would sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months under each of the first two sections and to four months rigorous imprisonment under the last section. The sentences will run concurrently. The respondent must now surrender to his bail, and serve out the sentence. Ahmad, J. 8 I agree.