Short Note : 1. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on the date of the incident the respondent was driving a motor-truck No. M.P.F. 7077 rashly and negligently on the Mandsaur-Sitamau Road; that as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by the respondent the truck dashed against three bullock carts which were going on the road; one of the bullock-carts fell down in a pit by the side of the road and two of the persons sitting in the cart died as a result of the accident and two others were seriously injured. On the above facts the respondent was prosecuted under section 304-A, 279 and 337, I.P.C. The respondent denied his guilt. The trial Court acquitted the respondent of the offence charged with. The State has challenged this order of acquittal in the appeal. Held : It was found proved by the trial Court that the truck was being driven by the respondent at the time of incident. The respondent also admitted that he was driving the truck. He, however, denied that this truck was being driven rashly or negligently by him. According to him (respondent) when he saw the bullock carts ahead he blew the horn. He also found that the brakes had failed and that the accident occurred on account of the sudden failure of the brakes and not on account of his rash and negligent driving. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence found that the truck was being driven at a speed of 40-50 k. m. per hour. The trial Court found that the speed of the truck was not excessive. 2. Jain Prakash (P .W. 2) examined by the prosecution deposed that he Was travelling in the said motor-truck and he was sitting an the rear seat of the motor-truck Between villages Bilatra and Handi 3-4 bullock carts Were going ahead; bullocks were running: the respondent blew the horn of the truck. The bullock carts did not give side; ran ahead and came in the middle of a culvert; that the truck swerved on the right side and the driver cried that the brakes have failed; that thereafter the truck collided against the bullock carts and the driver and other ran away. He also stated that the truck was being driven at a speed of 40-50 k. m. per hour. He also stated that the truck was being driven at a speed of 40-50 k. m. per hour. Relying upon the testimony of this witness the learned magistrate held that the accident occurred on account of the failure of the brakes and that it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent and the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by the respondent. It cannot seriously be contended that the conclusion of the learned magistrate is such which could not have been arrived at reasonably on the evidence adduced in the case. I am, therefore, of the opinion that there is no ground for interference with the order of acquittal in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.