JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is on the question of sentence against the judgment dated 11.1.1979. passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur by which the conviction and sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of which further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days under section 304-A I. P. C awarded by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur, has been maintained. 2. The only point argued before me was with respect to the quantum of the sentence. It was argued that accused-petitioner has a large family to support and he is the only source of support of the family. The incident occurred in the year 1970 and, therefore, now after a lapse of almost nine years it would be unjust and inequitable to send the accused back to jail to serve out the remaining portion of the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment. The argument was substantiated by the following authorities:- 3. Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi (A. I. R. 1973 Supreme Court 2127) : "The more difficult question seems to be one of sentence in the present case. The accident took place on April 20, 1965, the trial Court convicted the appellant on April 30, 1966 sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to a fine of Rs. 500/-. His appeal was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge on September 7, 1966 and his revision was disallowed on September 11, 1979. He was ordered to be released on bail by this Court on February 2, 1970. We are now in May 1973. The Criminal proceedings against the appellant have thus gone on since April, 1965 which means a little more than 8 years. The circumstances in which the collision between the truck and the appellants scooter occurred seems prima facie to suggest that they (their drivers) were both to blame. Penalties designed to deter crime should be gauged so far as possible to the degree of social danger that is represented by the crime and its repetition. To send the appellant back to Jail to serve the sentence of 6 months after 8 years seems to us to be highly unjust for the kind of offence which has been upheld against him by the three courts below. It is unlikely to have any reformatory effect on him. To send the appellant back to Jail to serve the sentence of 6 months after 8 years seems to us to be highly unjust for the kind of offence which has been upheld against him by the three courts below. It is unlikely to have any reformatory effect on him. Harassment of a criminal trial for more than 8 years and the expense which he must have incurred, in our opinion, can legitimately be taken into account when considering the question of sentence to be imposed by this court at this point of time. The appellant is stated to have served out only three weeks of imprisonment but on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances of the case we think it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but to increase the sentence of fine from Rupees 500/- to Rs. 700/-". 4. Ashgar v. State of Rajasthan (1972 WLN (1) p. 580) : "The driver was obviously sitting on the right hand side of the vehicle. Thus, the driver, under the circumstances, cannot be said to have acted rashly. No other circumstances were pointed out to show that he was running the risk of doing an act with reckless and indifference as to the consequence or that he has broken a negative duty. However he was undoubtedly guilty of negligence. He had a duty to look ahead and see whether there was a pedestrian or a cyclist. Law imposed that duty to him. An ordinary human prudence also required him to do so. In other words, the petitioner failed to exercise the caution enjoined on him. His culpable negligence or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and caution as was required of him has resulted in the death of two unfortunate persons." 5. Nand Ballabh Pant v. State (AIR 1977 L. C. 892) : "We think that having regard to the special facts and circumstances of the present case, it would meet the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to one month and in lieu thereof, the fine is enhanced to. Rs. 1,000/-." 6. The quantum of sentence to be awarded to the accused this would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can possibly be laid down in this respect. Rs. 1,000/-." 6. The quantum of sentence to be awarded to the accused this would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can possibly be laid down in this respect. Ordinarily to send the appellant back to jail after 8 or 9 years of the incident may not be feasible because the penalties designed to determine should be proportionate to the degree of social danger i. e. represented by the crime. In the case before me military truck No. 32164 was being driven from Jodhpur to Udaipur while the accused was driving truck No. RJQ. 8739 towards Jodhpur. In broad day light the truck and the military truck collided resulting in a loss of nine lives only because both the drivers were rash and negligent. Such act of driving is a source of grave danger to the traffic and, therefore, the accused petitioner deserves deterrent punishment. Inspite of the mitigating circumstances that the accused has a large family to support and he would serve out the sentence after 8 or 9 years I am not inclined to reduce the sentence in view of the gross negligence of the accused-petitioner, which warranted a deterrent punishment.In the result the revision is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******