JUDGMENT : D.R. Khanna, J. 1. Chander Sain was convicted u/s 304A of the Indian Penal Code by Shri R.N. Jindal, Metropolitan Magistrate on (3-5-1976 and sentenced to under-go rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- or in default to further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The allegations were that he had on the afternoon of 28-3-1975 caused the death of cyclist named Ram Singh while rashly and negligently driving mini bus No. DLP 5674 in the Cavalry Lane of Delhi University. 3. Chander Sain's appeal against this conviction and award of sentence was later dismissed by Shri K.B. Andley, Additional Sessions Judge on 12-7-1976. However, in the Criminal Revision moved before the High Court, the matter was restored, for being heard afresh on the quantum of sentence. This followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Santa Singh v. State of Punjab Crl. Appeal No. 230 of 1976; decided on 17-8-76. 4. When the matter so went before the trial Court, it after hearing Chander Sain passed the same sentence which had been awarded earlier. 5. Chander Sain then moved an appeal before the Sessions Court. There again the merits of the conviction were assailed. Arguments were also addressed on the quantum of sentence. Learned Shri J.D. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge (as his Lordship then was) then after considering the entire evidence on record and taking into account the contentions raised by Chander Sain again upheld the conviction. However, the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 9 months and a fine of Rs. 1,500/- or in default to the further rigorous imprisonment for six months. It was also directed that a sum of Rs. 1,000/-the fine if realised be paid to the nearest out of heirs of the deceased viz. wife and children in the first instance and his parents in the absence of the former. 6. It has been, in these circumstances, that Chander Sain has now moved this Court by the present revision. It has been sought to be urged that on merits, the conviction is not sustainable, and that in any case since he has already undergone imprisonment for about 72 days and has also paid the fine, the sentence should be reduced to what has already been undergone. The benefit of probation has also been sought. 7. It has been sought to be urged that on merits, the conviction is not sustainable, and that in any case since he has already undergone imprisonment for about 72 days and has also paid the fine, the sentence should be reduced to what has already been undergone. The benefit of probation has also been sought. 7. I have heard the parties and carefully considered the circumstances of the case. I do not find any justification to interfere in the concurrent findings of the courts below in upholding the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, the Appellant was driving the mini bus DLP 5674 at the time of the accident and the cyclist was hit by the front right side of the bus which was dented. He then fell on the kaclia road, on his left side. Multifarious injuries resulted to him from the accident including the fracture of skull. He succumbed at the spot because of these injuries. 8. It is also clear from the evidence on record that the Cavalry lane is a narrow road where buses and heavy traffic do not normally ply. That was also not the route of the mini bus which Chander Sain Petitioner was driving. He had thus diverted his bus from the normal route to this narrow road. There is next the evidence of two witnesses who saw the actual accident. They are P.W. 1 Shakil Abid who is a resident of property No. 14 Cavalry Lane, Delhi in front of which the unfortunate accident took place and P.W. 5 Shri Gajraj Singh, Head Constable who was on official duty in the University area. Both of them have stated that the bus which was overloaded with passengers came at a high speed and hit the cyclist who was on his extreme left side of the pacca road. The Petitioner then applied heavy brakes and stopped the bus at a short distance ahead. None of these witness is shown to be inimical to the Petitioner or otherwise interested to falsely implicate him in the present case. I have nothing to doubt their testimony. 9. Much has been sought to be made out from the side of the Petitioner from the admission made by P.W. 1 Shri Shakil Abid in cross-examination that the bus was stopped just 2 feet away from the place of impact. I have nothing to doubt their testimony. 9. Much has been sought to be made out from the side of the Petitioner from the admission made by P.W. 1 Shri Shakil Abid in cross-examination that the bus was stopped just 2 feet away from the place of impact. It was not got clarified if that distance was from the rear of the bus or its front side. This witness was a student of 18 years of age. That distance has been got clarified by the photographs Exhibit P.W. 3/A to Exhibit P.W. 3/E which P.W. 3 Harbans Singh took of the spot shortly after the accident. They show that the bus had moved ahead of the place where the cycle was lying and in fact, its rear portion itself was at some distance ahead of the cycle. The case of the Petitioner therefore that he was driving the bus at extremely slow speed and had stopped the bus there and then when the cyclist had of his own struck the bus cannot be accepted. 10. From the side of the defence one witness D.W. 1. Virja Ram has been examined who stated that he was inside the bus when the accident took place. He supported the defence version that the bus was moving at a very slow speed in second gear and that the cycle had tit the bus after taking a turn from the road from the University side. This witness is a co-driver of another mini bus plying on the same route. He claimed that his own bus had got out of order and he was inside the bus of the Petitioner. No other passenger he added was in the bus. This witness therefore cannot entirely be treated as a disinterested one. He did not volunteer his statement before the police as to the circumstances under which the accident took place. 11. The turning from the University side road from which the cyclist was stated to have come was sufficiently ahead of the place of impact. It could not, therefore, be said that the Petitioner was taken unaware at the crossing of the roads by the appearance of a cycle all of a sudden. Moreover, when the Petitioner was approaching the crossing, he ought to have considerably slowed down the bus and should have ensured while proceeding to cross that no other traffic was coming. It could not, therefore, be said that the Petitioner was taken unaware at the crossing of the roads by the appearance of a cycle all of a sudden. Moreover, when the Petitioner was approaching the crossing, he ought to have considerably slowed down the bus and should have ensured while proceeding to cross that no other traffic was coming. This was all the more so when the road was narrow and was not frequented by heavy traffic. 12. In the totality of these circumstances I am unable to hold that the impact and the resultant death of the cyclist was not on account of rash and negligent driving by the Petitioner as envisaged by Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. His conviction was clearly justified. His conduct in driving the bus at high speed on a narrow road which did not fall in his route and striking down the cyclist who moving, on his extreme left side clearly brought out rash and highly negligent driving. 13. Adverting to the quantum of sentence I am again unable to interfere in the sentence sustained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shri J.D. Jain. The Petitioner had examined three witnesses in this regard in defence in order to show that he has his wife and 3 children and his conduct otherwise was not bad. His services were also stated to have been terminated by the proprietor of the mini bus after his conviction in the present case. However, keeping in view the circumstances of the case when a human life was lost because of the extreme rash and negligent conduct on the part of the Petitioner. I am unable to grant any further relief in the matter of sentence. Accidents of death by heavy drive vehicles on roads are ever mounting. Some of the drivers of these vehicles consider themselves to be Mughals of the roads as if nothing should restrain them and that all others must keep asunder when they are driving on the roads. In the case of mini buses they in their zest to load more and more passengers and to earn more money rather act in reckless manner in driving and thus become hazard to all other users of the roads. In the present case for no explained reason the Petitioner took the loaded bus on a narrow road which did not fall within his route. 14. In the present case for no explained reason the Petitioner took the loaded bus on a narrow road which did not fall within his route. 14. I am, therefore, constrained to reject this revision. Let the Petitioner surrender before the trial court in order to serve his remaining sentence. The trial court should also ensure that he serves his due sentence.