JUDGMENT 1. - This revision has been filed by Kashiram against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge,Bharatpur dated 9th January, 1973 who upheld the conviction of the petitioner ordered by the Munsiff Magistrate, Bayana on 1.9.72. The petitioner was convicted for an offence. under section 304-A and 337 I. P. C. and was awarded sentence of 18 months rigorous imprisonment under the first count and six months under the second. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The petitioner was a driver on truck No. R. S. L. 3111. On 26.1.1967 he was driving his loaded truck and when he was negotiating a turn on the road, the truck struck against the parapet-wall of the culvert with a result that one person Jhoo-than who was sitting on the mercantile, fell down and died. The petitioner when challaned, took a plea that he was not driving his truck negligently or rashly. After the trial, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty for offence under section 304-A and 337 I. P. C. and sentenced him to 18 months and six months rigorous imprisonment for the said offences. On appeal, the learned appellate Judge also recorded a finding of negligence and rashness on the part of the petitioner and upheld the conviction and sentenced passed by the court below. 3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution witnesses do not state that the truck was running fast. On the contrary according to him, P. W. 1 Kesar has categorically stated that the truck was neither running fast nor slow, it was going on an average speed. Similarly relying on the statement of P. W. 4 who stated that there was a curve at the culvert and as soon as the curve was negotiated, the truck struck against the parapet wall of the culvert as it was very narrow. P. W. 15 Kishan who was also travelling in the ill-fated truck, has stated that the truck was going slowly. 4. I regret I cannot take note of all these statements in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction when the finding of the two courts below regarding the negligence and rashness of the petitioner is concurrent and based on some material on the record. 4. I regret I cannot take note of all these statements in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction when the finding of the two courts below regarding the negligence and rashness of the petitioner is concurrent and based on some material on the record. It is, however, urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been facing the ordeal of criminal trial for the last ten years and, therefore, looking to this factor, this Court must not send him to jail. According to him, justice can be met if his substantive sentence is reduced to one already undergone and a fine is imposed. In support of this request reliance was placed by him on Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi, AIR 1973 SC 2127 . In that case the sentence of six months awarded by the lower court was however reduced to one already undergone and according to the Supreme Court the convict had to face the trial for more than 8 years. It is true that the protracted criminal trial is by itself a kind of punishment which no law recognises but the law courts do take into consideration the time taken by the prosecution to ultimately see that the culprit is brought to book by law courts. In the instant case the petitioner has been facing these criminal proceedings for the last 10 years and, therefore, he has to face hardships of the criminal trial during all these ten years. On that ground it will not be in the interest of justice if the petitioner is now sent to jail to undergo the substantive sentence awarded to him by the trial court. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already suffered two weeks substantive sentence. He, therefore, prays that the sentence may be reduced to one already undergone. I am inclined to accept this Prayer of the learend counsel for the petitioner and, therefore, while partly allowing the revision application, the substantive sentence is reduced to one already undergone but the sentence of fine of Rs. 2,000/- is imposed on the petitioner, as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. He is allowed three months time to deposit the fine. In case fine is not deposited within the stipulated time, he will undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 6. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. *******