JUDGMENT 1. - The revision petition has been filed against the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirohi dated 6-2-1980 whereby the learned Addl Sessions Judge has maintained his conviction under Sections 279 and 304A Indian Penal Code recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi Tide his judgment dated 31-12-1976. The learned Judicial Magistrate has sentenced the accused petitioner to two months' rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of P13BXj 200/- under Section 279 Indian Penal Code and to one and half years' rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 304A Indian Penal Code. Both the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. In default of the payment of the aforesaid amounts of fine the accused petitioner has been ordered to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. However, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has reduced his substantive sentence of one and half years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code to six months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision briefly stated are that on 13-1-1976 at about 10.35 a.m. one Liyakat Ali. Roadways Booking Clerk gave information to Police Station, Mandar that the bus going from Raniwada to Sirohi has been involved in an accident and it has killed a child. The bus was bearing No. RSM 9452. The accident took place on the main road near the School. After investigation, the ease against the accused was challaned in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi where after trial he was convicted as aforesaid. On appeal the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has maintained his conviction and altered his sentence as aforesaid. Hence this revision. 3. I have heard Mr. S.R. Singhi, learned Counsel for the accused petitioner and Dr. S.S. Bhandawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have carefully gone through the record of the case. 4. Mr. S.R. Singhi, learned Counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner does not challenge the conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 279 and 304 Indian Penal Code but he has submitted that the deceased was also guilty of contributory negligence. S.S. Bhandawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have carefully gone through the record of the case. 4. Mr. S.R. Singhi, learned Counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner does not challenge the conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 279 and 304 Indian Penal Code but he has submitted that the deceased was also guilty of contributory negligence. According to him, the bus was going on its right side and the deceased tried to cross the road from wrong side and, therefore, the bus driver had no option but to swing the bus towards the wrong side of the road and, therefore, the child could not be saved. He has further submitted that the occurrence is dated 13-1-1976. More than eleven years nave elapsed. The accused-petitioner has already remained in custody for 10 days and has also deposited the amount of fine and, therefore, lenient view may be taken in so far as the sentence is concerned. 5. On the other hand, Dr. S.S. Bhandawat, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that these days, the people are driving their vehicle on the road very rashly and, therefore, deterrent punishment should be given to such accused. 6. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival submissions made at the bar. Actually, it is a case of rash and negligent driving. The site plan shows that the road was straight and so a person travelling on the Katcha road could very well have been observed by the driver and so, it was expected of him to save the life of the child. The site inspection note further shows that the tyre marks have gone up to 51 to 60 fts. till they crushed the boy. Thus, the bus was definitely driven with a fast speed. So much so, the bus could not be stopped before 60 ft. There may be some grains of truth in the argument of Mr. Singhi that deceased was also guily of contributory negligence. Mr. till they crushed the boy. Thus, the bus was definitely driven with a fast speed. So much so, the bus could not be stopped before 60 ft. There may be some grains of truth in the argument of Mr. Singhi that deceased was also guily of contributory negligence. Mr. Singhi drew my attention to a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2127 where in it was observed as under: "Where the drivers of a truck and an autorickshaw where both to Name for the collision that took place between them before the auto-rickshaw dashed against a child and the proceedings against the driver of the rickshaw went on for 8 years, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment for 6 months to the period of three weeks of imprisonment already undergone." Jagdish Chander's case (supra) was 8 years old where as this case is 11 years old. In that case too, a child was knocked down by the auto-scooter rickshaw, and the accused has remained in custody for three weeks. The Supreme Court has sentenced the accused to the period of three weeks imprisonment already undergone and has enhanced the amount of fine from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/-. In this case, the child has been knocked down by the bus and the accused has remained in custody for 10 days. Relying on Jagdish Chander's case (supra), I am persuaded to hold that it will not be just now to send the accused petitioner back to the custody now after elevan years of the occurrence. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the ends of justice would be met if the accused petitioner is sentenced to the period of his custody together with a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 304 Indian Penal Code. For the offence under Section 279 Indian Penal Code, it will be just to sentence him to the period of his custody. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 7. In the result, this revision partly succeeds and the conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 279 & 304A Indian Penal Code is maintained. However for the offence under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to the period of his custody along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. 7. In the result, this revision partly succeeds and the conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 279 & 304A Indian Penal Code is maintained. However for the offence under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to the period of his custody along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. For the offence under Section 279 Indian Penal Code, the accused petitioner is sentenced to the period of his custody. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 8. Mr. S.R. Singhi learned Counsel for the accused petitioner prays for 6 weeks time to deposit the amount of fine. Time prayed for is allowed. If the amount of not deposited within the aforesaid time, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi is directed to effect the arrest of the accused petitioner to under go the sentence imposed against him in default of the payment of fine.Revision partly allowed. *******