JUDGMENT V.D. Bhargava, J. - This is an application in revision on behalf of Majid Ali who has been convicted under Sections 279 and 429, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200/- under each of the sections. 2. The case against the applicant was that he was driving rashly and negligently, a tonga on the Mahatma Gandhi Road near Subhash Park, Agra, and thereby broke one of the legs of a mule on 4-11-52 at about 3-30 p.m. The applicant pleaded not guilty and denied that he was driving the tonga rashly or negligently and his defence was that the mule was injured by a municipal truck. The Additional Sessions Judge came to a finding that the tonga was not being driven at a high speed and as such there could be no question of any act of rashness due to high speed. But he was of opinion that it was not a sheer accident and that the accused must have been driving the tonga in a very negligent manner. On that finding he convicted the accused. 3. It is admitted that the tonga and the mule both were going on their left side and the traffic rule was not infringed by the applicant. It is further clear from the finding that the tonga was not being driven at a high speed. If that was so, I am unable to follow as to what was the act which constituted negligence of the accused. Moreover, on the facts of the case neither Section 279 nor Section 429, Indian Panel Code. will apply. Section 279 reads as follows:- "Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description.............." 4. One of the ingredients of Section 279 is that it must endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to another person. The section will not apply if he hurts any animal like a mule, as in the present case. Therefore, so far as Section 279 is concerned, the conviction of the applicant cannot stand. 5. Section 429 also can not apply to the facts of the present case. The section will not apply if he hurts any animal like a mule, as in the present case. Therefore, so far as Section 279 is concerned, the conviction of the applicant cannot stand. 5. Section 429 also can not apply to the facts of the present case. 429 reads as follows: "Whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless, any elephant, camel, horse, mule, buffalow, bull, cow or ox, whatever may be the value thereof, or an other animal of the value of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description.............." 6. Section 429 will only apply in those cases where there is a deliberate attempt on behalf of the accused to commit a mischief. Commission of a mischief involves an animus to do something. Here the applicant had no intention of either killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless the mule. Therefore Section 429 either will not apply. 7. In the circumstances the conviction and sentence of the applicant cannot stand. I accordingly allow the application in revision and set aside the conviction and sentences of the applicant. The fine if realised shall be refunded.