Judgment S.P.Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner, Bhagwat Rai. He has been convicted under Sections. 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Under the former court, the petitioner has been sentenced to. undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and under the latter to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a month and a half. 2. The prosecution case is that on the 6th June, 1966, Ramchandra Singh, (P.W. 4) was going on a cycle on Chapra-Sonepore Road i n the morning at 9 A. M. A truck bearing Registered no. BRD 324 was coming from the opposite direction and although Ramchandra Singh (P. W. 4) moved to the extreme left side of the road, yet the truck came and dashed against him, which resulted in minor injuries to him and damage to his cycle. 3. On the 26th of August, 1967, during the course of the trial, a compromise petition was filed by which the complainant wanted to compromise the matter, so that the accused may be set free. The trial court, however, found that the charge under Sec. 279 of the Indian Penal Code was not compoundable as a result of which, the compromise could not be accepted; Thereafter, the trial proceeded and the court came to the conclusion that the accused, Bhagwat Rai, was driving the truck rashly and negligently and that he was guilty of charges under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Chapra. 4. Mr. Thakur Prasad, appearing for the petitioner, submitted firstly that an offence under Sec. 337 of the Indian Penal Code was compoundable under law and if the parties wanted to compromise the trial court should have granted permission to compound it. So far as the conviction and sentence under section 279 of the Code was concerned, he further submitted that the charge of rash and negligent driving was not established. So far as the conviction and sentence under section 279 of the Code was concerned, he further submitted that the charge of rash and negligent driving was not established. In this connection, he referred me to the evidence on the record to show that the speed at which the truck was being driven at the relevant time was very slow, say, about 10-12 miles per hour and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said to be a rash and negligent driving. He further referred me to that part of the evidence where Ramchandra Singh, Complainant, (P. W. 4) himself who stated that the truck was blowing horn and that this act of the driver shows that he was not driving the truck negligently. According to Mr. Prasad, as the ingredients of Sec. 279, Indian Penal Code, were not established, the conviction under the aforesaid section was bad in law. I dont agree with this submission of Mr. Prasad assailing the conviction. The road on which the truck was plying was only 11 ft. wide and, therefore, a very narrow road. It requires a greater caution in driving a vehicle of the size of a motor lorry on such a narrow strip of road. Even if the truck was going at a speed of 10 to 12 miles per hour, it cannot be said as a rule that it was not a rash driving. It depends upon the situation or the location where the vehicle was being driven. 5. There is no dispute on the fact that Ram Chandra Singh was hit and his cycle was damaged nor there is any dispute on the fact that road on which the truck was being driven was a very narrow road. I, therefore, think that it would not be correct to say that the charge of rash negligent driving has not been proved against the accused. 6. Mr. Thakur Prasad further submitted that there was discrepancy even with regard to the place of occurrence. The complainant (P. W. 4) who suffered the injury, stated that he was hit by the truck near Chakia Bazar where as the Investigating Officer (P. W. 6) stated that the occurrence took place on the road near Chakia Jalalpur. I dont think, the two persons while stating about the place of occurrence meant two different places. The complainant (P. W. 4) who suffered the injury, stated that he was hit by the truck near Chakia Bazar where as the Investigating Officer (P. W. 6) stated that the occurrence took place on the road near Chakia Jalalpur. I dont think, the two persons while stating about the place of occurrence meant two different places. Ramchandra Singh, the complainant (P. W. 4) stated that the place of occurrence being Chakia Bazar and the Investigating Officer (P. W 6) stated the place of occurrence being Chakia Jalalpur they cannot be held to mean that the place of occurrence was different according to each other. 7. On a careful consideration of the case. I think, the conviction under section 279, Indian Penal Code is proper. 8. Now coming to the conviction under section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, the offence under this section is a compoundable one and I think, since the parties have sought courts permission to compound it, they should be permitted to compromise. I accordingly, grant permission to compound the offence under section 337 of the Code. The petitioner will, therefore, be exonerated from the charge under that section. So far as the sentence under section 279, Indian Penal Code, is concerned, I think here also the ends of Justice will be met by imposing a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) in place of imprisonment for six months. 9. The sentence of imprisonment is accordingly converted into a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupes five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner will undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The fine if paid, the half of it should be paid to the complainant. 10. In the result, the application is dismissed with the above modification in the sentence. Application dismissed