JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Bikaner, whereby the respondent was acquitted of the offences under Sections 279, 336 and 337, Indian Penal code and under Section 129, Indian Railways Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that P.W.1 , Northern Railway, Hanumangarh, on 25 8-1973, lodged the report Ex. P/4 with the S.H.O., G.R P., Hanumangarh. to the effect that Bus No. RSN 5981 collided with the gate of the level crossing when the gate man was closing the gate to give passage to the light engine at 16.45 hours, as a result thereof the gate man was hurt and he was directed to the Railway Doctor for treatment. On report a case under Sections 279, 336 and 337, I P.C., and 129, Indian Railways Act, was registered by the S H.O. Jugrajsingh, G.R P. Police Station, Hanumangarh, and, thereafter he visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ex. P/3 and site notes Ex. P/3A He seized the bus, which was found at the spot vide memo Ex. P/2. He got the mechanical examination of the bus conducted and thereafter presented the charge-sheet against Singara Singh, the driver of the bus. Substance of the accusation was put to the accused, in which he denied the prosecution case. At the trial, the prosecution examined Dr. Roop Singh (P.W. 1). Chain Singh (P.W. 2), gateman, Kishan (P.W. 3), another gate man and Jugrajsingh, S.H.O. (P.W 4). The statement of the accused was recorded in which be denied the prosecution case. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the arguments, acquitted the accused. The State has preferred this appeal, dis satisfied with the order of acquittal. 3. I have heard Shri R.C. Maheshwari, appearing on behalf of Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri B.R. Arora, learned counsel for the accused respondent and perused the record of the case. 4. The prosecution case rests primarily on the evidence of Chainsingh and Kishan. Their evidence is to the effect that at about 4.45 p.m., an engine was about to pass on the railway track, so Chainsingh, gateman of gate No. 176, was closing the gate. He had locked the gate of one side and had come to lock the gate of other side. Their evidence is to the effect that at about 4.45 p.m., an engine was about to pass on the railway track, so Chainsingh, gateman of gate No. 176, was closing the gate. He had locked the gate of one side and had come to lock the gate of other side. In that side Bus No. RSN 5981 came with speed and dashed against the gate, as a result thereof Chainsingh fell down and sustained injuries. Both the witnesses have stated that the Bus was being driven with a high speed. They have also stated that the bus got entangled with the gate and thereafter it was pulled. Chainsingh sustained the following injuries on his person, as a result of striking of the bus against the gate which in its turn struck against the gateman Chainsingh: 1. One lacerated wound 1/4 "x 1/4 "x ⅛" on the right lower lip upper and midial part. 2. One abrasion 6 "x 1" on the right side of chest lateral and posterior aspect vertical in direction. The above injuries of Chainsingh have been proved by Dr. Roopsingh (P.W. 1). The Injury report is Ex. P/1. The learned Magistrate observed that it is not in the evidence of the witnesses as to where the bus stopped and the witnesses have also not stated as to what was the speed of the bus. It was also observed by the learned Magistrate that had the bus struck against the gate, the gateman Chainsingh would have been run over by the bus and would have come beneath the bus. In my opinion, the criticism, which has been levelled against the prosecution evidence, is not justified. The circumstances clearly show rashness & negligence on the part of the driver. From the perusal of the site plan, it is evident that it is a straight road.The driver know that there is a level crossing & it can also be said that when one side of the gate was locked by the gateman, he ought to have slowed down the bus and should have driven at a spend so that it could have completely stopped much before entering into the level crossing. This fact stands proved by the testimony of Chainsingh and Kishan that the bus struck against the gate, which in turn struk against the gate man. P.W. 5 Sukhpalsingh conducted the mechanical examination of the bus. This fact stands proved by the testimony of Chainsingh and Kishan that the bus struck against the gate, which in turn struk against the gate man. P.W. 5 Sukhpalsingh conducted the mechanical examination of the bus. He has proved the report Ex P/6, and according to his report he found the glass of right hand side broken and he also found mud-guard of right hand side and front show damaged.Marks of collusion were noticed by him on the right side of the bus and the bumper was found in a bent position. From the fact proved by the testimony of P.W. 2 Chainsingh, P.W. 3 Kishan and P.W. 5 Sukhpalsingh, it can safely be found that there was rashness and negligence on the part of the driver in driving the bus and as a result thereof Chainsingh sustained injuries. The ingredient of the offences under Sections 279, 336 and 337, I.P.C., and under Section 129 of the Indian Railways Act, are proved against the accused-respondent beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Magistrate did not appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective and, in my opinion, the judgment of acquittal deserves to be set aside and I hold the accused respondent guilty of the offences under Sections 279, 336 and 337, and 129 of the Indian Railways Act.Coming to the question of sentence, it may be stated that the occurrence dates back 25-8-1973, so it would not be proper to impose any substantive sentence. Rather I felt that after a lapse of so much of time, ends of justice would be met in case the accused-respondent is given the benefit of probation. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of acquittal of the trial court is set aside and the accused-respondent is convicted for the offences under Sections 274, 337 and 336, I.P.C , and under Section 129 of the Indian Railways Act. However, instead of sentencing him to any imprisonment, it is directed that he he released on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand rupees) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Bikaner, to appear and receive sentence during the period of six months and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The learned counsel for the accused respondents prays for six weeks' time for production of requisite bonds. 1,000/- (one thousand rupees) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Bikaner, to appear and receive sentence during the period of six months and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The learned counsel for the accused respondents prays for six weeks' time for production of requisite bonds. Time prayed for is allowed.Appeal allowed. *******