Short Note : 1. In this appeal, the State of M.P. has challenged the order of acquittal of the respondent Sardarsingh under sections 279 and 338 of the IPC recorded by Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari on 19-11-71. Held : I have heard Shri A. G. Telang, Dy. Government Advocate for the State and Shri Rajendrasingh Advocate for the respondent. I am of the view that the order of acquittal of the respondent under sections 279 and 338 of the IPC is not in order. 2. I will first refer to the inspection note Ex. P-16. It shows that the road at the place of incident was wide enough. It further shows that the tractor was lying on its own side, while the bus came on the wrong side and dashed against the tractor with the result that the front wheel of the bus climbed over the tractor. The spot inspection, therefore, shows that the bus was being driven on the wrong side and the tractor was on its correct side. 3. The medical evidence established that Johatram and others had received injuries. Johatram had received a fracture also. The above evidence conclusively established that the respondent was negligent inasmuch as his bus dashed against the tractor, coming from the opposite direction, but on the right side. There is no explanation why the respondent's bus went on the wrong side and dashed against the tractor. This indicated negligence of the respondent. 4. The defence was that the brakes of the bus failed and, therefore, the accident took place. The respondent has entered the witness box as D.W.1. He stated that he had seen the tractor at a distance of 30 yards. He applied his brakes which failed and the bus dashed against the tractor. He admitted that he had seen the tractor from a distance of 100 yards and had applied brakes from a distance of 50 yards. He admitted that the foot-brake works after one kick. The respondent's evidence shows that he had seen the tractor at a sufficiently long distance and that there is nothing to establish that the brakes of the bus failed suddenly. In fact, the respondent admitted that after one kick, the brakes work well. He admitted that the foot-brake works after one kick. The respondent's evidence shows that he had seen the tractor at a sufficiently long distance and that there is nothing to establish that the brakes of the bus failed suddenly. In fact, the respondent admitted that after one kick, the brakes work well. This shows that the respondent did not apply the brakes in time, though he saw the tractor at a distance and his dashing against it on the wrong side indicated his rash and negligent act. 5. For the reasons given above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of acquittal of the respondent under section 279 and 338 of the IPC is set aside. Instead he is convicted under these sections and is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150.00/- or in default one month's rigorous imprisonment on each count.