S. C. MOHAPATRA, J, J. ( 1 ) BEING convicted under Sections 279/304 - A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorolls Imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs. 500/- by the Appellate Court Petitioner has preferred this revision. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case is that on 10-9-1979 at about 3 p. m. while accused who was driving the bus ORP 3294 from Pun to ahubaneswar rashly and negligently it ran over two cyclists near the office of the Block Development Officer and Tahasildar, Pipili. causing their death. Petitioner denied to be driving the vehicle with rashness and negligence and pleaded not to be guilty of any offence. ( 3 ) PROSECUTION has examined five witnesses which included eye-witnesses to the occurrece. Appreciating their evidence both the courts find that the road at the spot of accidence was pitched 12 feet wide. Both sides of the pitched portion was metalled 10 feet wide each. Thus end to end it was 32 feet wide. Portion of the road at the spot was being repaired and flag was placed to warn about the repair. There was a narrow passage for the bus to move. On one side there was a ditch and heaps of metals were kept on the other side. Another bus ORP 3294 had already entered at the place of repair into the narrow passage. The two ill fated cyclists were on die heap of metal when the bus came in speed and ran over them. ( 4 ) ON the aforesaid finding there cannot be any doubt that petitioner was driving the bus rashly and negligently. Driver of a passenger bus is required to be more careful than driver of other vehicles because he is taking care of transport of human lives. Driver of any vehicle far less to speak of a passenger bus would take adequate care before entering into a passage as described above. Added to it there was indication that the road was under repair. It might be that the bus from the other side violated the road discipline. That would not however, absolve the petitioner not to take care for safety of the movement of his vehicle. If the vehicle would not have been beyond the required speed it could not have rart over the two cyclists on the metal heep. It might be that the bus from the other side violated the road discipline. That would not however, absolve the petitioner not to take care for safety of the movement of his vehicle. If the vehicle would not have been beyond the required speed it could not have rart over the two cyclists on the metal heep. These circumstances are sufficient to draw an infereance that petitioner was guilty of rashness and negligent in driving and both the courts rightly found him guilty of offence both under Sections 279 and 304 - A of the Indian Penal Code. ( 5 ) COMING to the sentence it is found that the offence was committed more than ten years back, in the year 1979. Petitioner has grown older in the meantime. However, imposition of substantive sentence in the present case is justified. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one month in the circumstances would be adequate. There is no scope for reducing the sentence of fine which is confirmed In default to pay fine, petitioner is to undergo R. I. for one month. ( 6 ) IN the result Criminal Revision is accordingly, dismissed subject to modification of sentence as Indicated above.