JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Petitioner, has been convicted under Sections 304-A and 337, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for three months on each count; the sentences to run concurrently. Prosecution case is that on 25-6-1965 the Petitioner was driving a truck O.R.C. 4314 from Sorisipada forest towards village Dubri. It was about 7-30 p.m. in the night. The truck was loaded with 17 logs of timber. the cart track on which the truck was being driven was zigag. The weather was cyclonic and there was heavy rain. While the truck was taking a turn, it dashed against the stump of a tree as a result of which there was a heavy jerk. The rope with which the logs of wood were tied gave way and the persons sitting on the logs fell down. One of the logs fell over one of the labourers named Banamali Behera as a result of which he died. The defence was one of denial. P.ws. 1, 3 and 5 were occupants of the truck at the time of accident. After he learned Sessions Judge recorded the following finding: It will thus be seen from the evidence extracted above that the Appellant drove the vehicle on a zigzag and irregular cart track at night when there was heavy rain and storm. Instead of stopping the vehicle when the rain and storm started, he drove it in uttar disregard of the life and safety of the persons who were sitting on the load of logs. A prudent driver would not have driven a heavily loaded truck when the road was muddy and the weather was cyclonic. The evidence of p.w. 5 also shows that' the' Appellant was,driving the truck at a high speed as he was in a hurry to reach the destination. Due to the rash and negligent driving the truck dashed against the stump of the tree. Mr. Rath took me through the evidence. After going through the same I am satisfied that the finding of fact recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is, substantially borne out by the evidence on record. 3. Mr. Rath advanced the sole contention that the learned Courts below did not come, to a specific conclusion that the death was the result of rash and negligent act of the Petitioner without the intervention of negligence of persons who tied the logs. 3. Mr. Rath advanced the sole contention that the learned Courts below did not come, to a specific conclusion that the death was the result of rash and negligent act of the Petitioner without the intervention of negligence of persons who tied the logs. He contended that the log of wood were loosely tied by the pains sitting on them and on account of the looseness of tying the rope gave way and the logs of wood were thrown off when the truck dashed against the stump. The contention as no substance. 4. Section 304,-A lays down that whoever causes the death of many person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. Section 337, enacts that whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently s to endanger, human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. The essential element in both the sections is rash and negligent act. 5. What the prosecution is to prove under these sections is no longer res integra. In Kurban Hussein Mohammedali Rangawalla v. The State of Maharashtra 1965 S.C.D. 1056 their Lordships accepted the following dictum laid down by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap (1902) 4 Bom L.R. 679, as laying down the correct law. The dictum is: To impose criminal liability u/s 34-A, Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused, and that act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another negligence. It must be the cause causans; it is not enough that it may have been the cause sine qua non. The same principle was again accepted in Kishan Chand and Anr. v. State of Haryana (1970) 11 S.C. W.R. 655. 6. The question for consideration is whether the death of Banamali and the injuries on other persons sitting on the track were the direct and proximate cause of the Petitioner's rash and negligent driving. The same principle was again accepted in Kishan Chand and Anr. v. State of Haryana (1970) 11 S.C. W.R. 655. 6. The question for consideration is whether the death of Banamali and the injuries on other persons sitting on the track were the direct and proximate cause of the Petitioner's rash and negligent driving. The conclusion to be reached would vary on the facts and circumstances of each case. 7. In this case the facts and circumstances lead to the irresistible conclusion that the death and injuries were the direct and proximate result of the Petitioner's negligence and reshness. The undisputed features are that the Petitioner was driving the truck on a forest cart track which was Irregular and zigzag. It was raining heavily and the whether was cyclonic. The truck was heavily loaded with 17 logs of wood and 12 persons were sitting on the to The road was muddy. It was, therefore, incumbent on the Petitioner either to stop the truck or to drive it very slowly and cautiously. The Petitioner knew, fully well that even the slightest jerk was likely to throw off the persons sitting on the top. Cautiousness in each case would depend upon the facts and circumstances of that case. When by the Petitioner's driving, the truck dashed against the stump the jerk caushed as a result thereof was directly responsible for the logs and the persons sitting thereon being thrown off. The death and injuries were, therefore, the direct and proximate result of the fresh and negligent driving. It is not necessary in all cases that driving would be with high speed in order to constitute rashness or negligence. The truck is to be driven according to the conditions of the road, the load it carries and the persons likely to be affected by possible accident. The truck may be driven even at a snail's pace, if necessary. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. In this case, the accident was the direct and proximate result of the Petitioner's rash and negligent driving. 8. Rule 95(b) and (c) of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, 140 (hereinafter to i.e. referred to as the rules) runs thus: 95. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. In this case, the accident was the direct and proximate result of the Petitioner's rash and negligent driving. 8. Rule 95(b) and (c) of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, 140 (hereinafter to i.e. referred to as the rules) runs thus: 95. Carriage of Persons in Goods Vehicles (a)xxxxxx (b) No person shall be carried in the cab of a goods vehicle beyond the number for which there is sitting accommodation at the rate of 45 centimeters measured along the seat, excluding the space reserved for the driver, for each person; and not more than six persons in all in addition to the driver shall be carried in any goods vehicle. (c) No person shall be carried upon the goods or otherwise in such a manner that person is in danger of falling from the vechicle and in no case shall any person be carried in a goods vehicle in such a manner that any part of his person, when he is in a sitting position, is, at a height exceeding 3 metres from the surface upto which the vehicle rests xxxxxx It would be seen that not more than six persons can be carried in a truck in addition to the driver. No person shall be carried upon the goods or otherwise in such a manner that such person is in danger of failing from the vehicle. The driver acted contrary to the rules in carrying 12 persons on the top. This itself is a rash and negligent act. It is true that the driver is not being convicted for breach of the rules. What is to be emphasised is that the breach of a positive statutory rule is one of the factors to be taken into consideration in determining whether the act was rash and negligent. The observation made by A. Misra, J. in Raghunath Behera v. State 34 (1965) C.L.T. 500 is to be construed that way. A reference may be made to Pitabash Panda Vs. The State, and Keshab Pradhan v. The State 31 1965 C.L.T. 279 where Narasimham C.J. discussed this aspect of the matter. 9. On the afforesaid analysis, I am satisfied that the death and injuries were the direct and proximate result of the rash and negligent driving of the Petitioner. The conviction is well founded. 10. Mr. The State, and Keshab Pradhan v. The State 31 1965 C.L.T. 279 where Narasimham C.J. discussed this aspect of the matter. 9. On the afforesaid analysis, I am satisfied that the death and injuries were the direct and proximate result of the rash and negligent driving of the Petitioner. The conviction is well founded. 10. Mr. Rath also prayed for reduction of the sentence. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the sentence doe not appear to be heavy to call for interference. 11. The revision fails and is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed