JUDGMENT V. P. Mathur, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order passed on 11101984 by M. L. Agarwal, the then Vth Additional Sessions Judge Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 1984, which arose out of the judgment and order dated 1951984 passed by Mr. B. Prasad, the then II Additional Chief Juclicia1 Magistrate, Agra in Criminal Case No. 1266 of 1983. The learned Magistrate had convicted the revisionist under Section 2/9 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. He had also convicted him under Section 304A I. P. C. and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/. He had also directed that in the event of default of the payment of fine, the revisionists will undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. There was a further direction by the learned Magistrate that the main sentences of imprisonment shall be concurrent. It was also provided that the entire amount of fine to be deposited was to be paid to Mohan Lal Verma (PW 1) by way of compensation. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the lower court's order in toto. 2. This revision was admitted only on the point of sentence. 3. Today when it was taken up for hearing after the revision of the list, no one appeared for the revisionist. I was, therefore, taken through the lower court's judgment by the learned counsel for the State. There is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below to the effect that 00 1061981 at about 3.00 p.m. the revisionist was driving a motor truck No. UPU 4078 recklessly and carelessly, and hit against a rickshaw in which Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Mohan Lal Verma was going. The result was that not only the rickshaw was damaged but the lady also fell down on the road and received injury on her head. As a result of this she died in the hospital. First Information Report was lodged. Investigation was made and the case came up for disposal before the Magistrate. 4. One eye witness namely Bahadur Singh (PW 6) entered the witness box. He was a perfectly independent witness. In addition the post mortem examination report of the lady was also proved and the Investigating Officer's statement was recorded. 5. First Information Report was lodged. Investigation was made and the case came up for disposal before the Magistrate. 4. One eye witness namely Bahadur Singh (PW 6) entered the witness box. He was a perfectly independent witness. In addition the post mortem examination report of the lady was also proved and the Investigating Officer's statement was recorded. 5. In view of the concurrent ending of fact, this Court does not consider it necessary to go into the merits of the matter. On the question of sentence. I have taken notice of the fact that the lower appellate Court's judgment was passed on 11101984 while the revision was admitted on 17101984 and perhaps during this days the applicant remained in jail custody. For an offence under Section 304A I. P. C. this is absolutely insufficiently. Under these circumstances, there is no justification for interference with the sent nee awarded. 6. The revision has no force and is hereby dismissed. The bail order passed by this Court on 17101984 shall stand cancelled. The Cheif Judicial Magistrate of Agra shall proceed to take the applicantrevisionist into custody and send him to jail to serve out the sentence awarded and also to take steps to. realise the amount of fine, if not paid. Revision dismissed.