B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) A valuable human life of an innocent scooterist" is lost in a road accident by the lethal hands at the wheel of S. T. bus, in a road accident which took place at about 20. 05 hours on the turn of 3 roads at Fatehganj area in Vadodara city. Both the Courts below have found the s. T. driver guilty for his rash and negligent driving u/s. 304-A of the Indian penal Code (code for short) and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine Rs. 200/-, in default 15 days rigorous Imprisonment and the prayer made by the petitioner-accused in this revision Application is to grant him the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and, to release him on probation. ( 2 ) THE question is whether in such type of accident, the benefit of probation should be extended to such accused person or not. And, whether the sentence of 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment for such offence is unduly harsh or not. ( 3 ) FOR answering the aforesaid questions, few relevant facts are required to be noted, which are as under:3. 1 On October 6, 1979 one Jayantibhai shah who started from his house on his scooter No. GJT 5680 for going to fatehganj 4 roads crossing, was knocked down from behind by the petitioner-accused by S. T. bus No. GTH 8536 causing a serious head injury as a result of which Jayantibhai Shah breathed his last leaving behind him his widow anupma, while overtaking the scooter in full speed and in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and without applying break. And this fatal accident rendered the entire family of deceased jayantibhai Shah in a helpness condition. ( 4 ) THE petitioner-accused was charge-sheeted by the police before the learned J. M. F. C. , Vadodara for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the Code and under Sections 112 and 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act (act for short ). The learned J. M. F. C. convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Code and imposed a fine of 6 months R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. The learned J. M. F. C. convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Code and imposed a fine of 6 months R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo 30 days rigorous Imprisonment and further ordered to undergo 3 months Rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo 15 days rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Code. However, no separate order of sentence was passed under Section 116 of the Act and he further ordered that both the aforesaid sentences to run concurrently. ( 5 ) THE petitioner-accused has challenged the aforesaid order of conciviction and sentence passed by the learned J. M. F. C. before the learned addl. Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in appeal, which came to be dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned J. M. F. C. was comfirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions judge and he also refused to prayer made by the accused to give him the benefit of probation by observing that if the accused is released on probation, it is likely that the same would be. . . . ( 6 ) MR. R. V. Deshmukh learned advocate appearing for the petitioner-accused could not challenge the evidence of eye witnesses (1) chetankumar Dolatram Exh. 5 and (2) tribhovanshanker Exh. 11 who was travelling in the said bus as a passenger driven by the petitioner-accused. I have gone through the evidence of both the witnesses and there is no material infirmity found in their evidence and both the Courts below have rightly relied upon the evidence of these two witnesses to convict the petitioner-accused. ( 7 ) NO question of law is involved in this Revision Application nor any error of facts while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses has been committed by the Courts below. ( 8 ) I, therefore, do not see any reason or justification to interfere with the order of conviction recorded by the Courts below. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, Mr. ( 8 ) I, therefore, do not see any reason or justification to interfere with the order of conviction recorded by the Courts below. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, Mr. Deshmukh learned advocate appearing for the petitioner-accused very strenuously urged before me that in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jadeja takhubha Lakhubha v. State of Gujarat reported in 1985 GLH (U. J. 17) the lower appellate Court ought to have given the benefit of probation to the accused under the provisions of Probation of Offenders act. Therefore, he has urged that this court should order to release the petitioner on probation in this case also. And particularly when the offence was committed in October 1979 and a period of more than 11 years has been passed and therefore, it will not be in the interest of justice to undergo the sentence of rigorous Imprisonment for six months. As against that, Mr. S. P. Dave, learned addl. P. P. appearing for the State has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ravjibhai Maganbhai v. State of Gujarat reported in 1984 G. L. H. p. 306 and judgment of this Court in the case of Somabhai Maganbhai Dabhi v. State of Gujarat reported in 1988 (2) g. L. R. page 995 and also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of kantilal Shivabhai Thakkur v. State of gujarat reported in 1990 (2) G. L. R. p. 785 and has strenuously urged that no benefit of probation should be given to the accused in this case in any sets of circumstances including the fact that the offence was committed before 11 years back and he had also urged that, in fact, the punishment of 6 months Rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court is, on the contrary, lenient and not harsh. ( 10 ) IT may be noted that in the case of Jadeja Takhubha Lakhubha (supra), the benefit of probation was given by this Court, as unfortunately, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rattan singh v. State of Punjab reported in A. I. R. 1980 S. C. p. 84 was not brought to the notice of the Court at that time, and the accused in that case was given benefit of probation by this Court. 10. 10. 1 However, in the case of Ravjibhai maganbhai (supra) this Court had an occasion to consider the judgment of the supreme Court in Rattan Singhs case (supra) and this Court has held as under:"in view of this settled legal position and looking to the facts of the present case that the petitioner, who was driving s. T. bus with speed overtook the scooter from its right side and thereafter again turned on left clearly shows absolute negligence on the part of the driver. By the said accident, a life is lost. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid circumstances of the case, nature of the offence and in context of escalating crime whereby a number of people die daily of road accidents and that this deadly spectacle is becoming common these days in our towns and cities (as observed in the aforesaid decision by the Supreme court), I think it would not be desirable to release the petitioner on probation under Section 360 of the Criminal procedure Code otherwise people may lose faith in judicial system. Judicial instrument has a public accountability and releasing the petitioner on probation may result in cynical disregard of the law which would have its impact on the society. " ( 11 ) AGAIN, this Court had an occasion to consider the aforesaid judgment of the supreme Court in Rattan Singhs case (supra) in the case of Somabhai manglabhai Dabhi (supra) and this court refused to grant the benefit of probation to the accused in that case. Again, this court had an occasion to consider the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in Rattan Singhs case (supra) in the case of Kantilal Shivabhai Thakkur (supra) and this Court refused to give benefit of probation to the accused. 11. 1 Thus, therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rattan singhs case (supra) which has been consistently followed by this Court in (1) 1984 G. L. H. p. 306, (2) 1988 (2) G. L. R. p. 995 = 1988 (2) GLH ?94 and (3) 1990 (2) G. L. R. p. 785, I agree with the view expressed in the aforesaid judgment of this Court and reject the prayer of the petitioner accused to grant him the benefit of probation under the Probation of offenders Act. ( 12 ) NOW, that last submission made by mr. ( 12 ) NOW, that last submission made by mr. Deshmukh learned Advocate for the petitioner-accused that the sentence of 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment is very harsh and as the offence was committed 11 years ago and therefore, to ask the petitioner to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months would not only ruin him but also his entire family. In the circumstances, instead of passing the order of substantive sentence, the amount of fine may be increased and the order of substantive of 6 months Rigorous imprisonment be set aside. ( 13 ) IT may be noted that in the case of State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias raju reported in A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 861, the Supreme Court has enhanced the sentence of fine imposed by the Trial court and imposed substantial sentence of 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment wherein the High Court has declined to exercise its power under Section 377 of the Cr. P. C. by giving the following reasons:"the judgment of conviction and sentence has been delivered on January 30, 1981. We are today at the fag end of January 1983. The saward has been hanging over the head of the accused for a very long time, which should have made him undergo a lot of mental agony and torture. It is no doubt true that one death has taken place and injuries have been caused to one person. The sentence imposed appears to be a lenient one. Therefore, considering the fact the appeal is pending for a long time and it must have caused the accused a lot of mental anxiety, we think that the appeal should be dismissed with an observation that in such serious cases the court is expected to take a serious view of the matter and not to be lenient in such matters. In this observation, the appeal is dismissed. " ( 14 ) AND, The Supreme Court was constrained to observe in that case that the reasoning given by the High Court were really non-existent as well as irrelevant one and it itself took upon the task of enhancing the sentence of the accused who was found guilty for the offence under Section 304 of the Code and imposed 6 months Rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. l,000/- in default to further undergo Rigorous imprisonment for two months. 14. l,000/- in default to further undergo Rigorous imprisonment for two months. 14. 1 That was a case in which the offence was committed in January 1981 and the Supreme Court has enhanced the sentence in 1987, in spite of the fact that considerable period was lapsd in-between the commission of offence and the supreme Court. Suffice it to say that this is a complete answer to the request made by Mr. Deshmukh for not sending the accused in jail for 6 months Rigorous imprisonment after a period of 11 years, of the commission of that offence. ( 15 ) UNDER the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below are hereby confirmed. However, before parting with this judgment, few things are required to be stated as guidelines for the purpose of imposing sentence in the offences punishable under Section 304 of the Code by the Trial Courts. 15. 1 It may be noted that in Rattan singhs case (supra), the accused who was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the code was sentenced to suffer maximum period of two years Rigorous imprisonment which was confirmed finally by the Supreme Court and Mr. Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer has observed in that case as under:"this petition for special leave under article 136 is by a truck driver whose lethal hands at the wheel of an heavy automobile has taken the life of a scooterist - a deadly spectacle becoming so common these days in our towns and cities. This is a case which is more portent than an event and is symbolic of the callous yet tragic traffic transportation - the besetting sin of our highways which are more like fatal facilities than means of mobility. More people die of road accidents than by most diseases, so much so the Indian Highways are among the top killers of the country. What with frequent complaints of the States misfeasence in the maintenance of roads in good trim, the absence of public interest litigation to call State transport to order, and the lack of citizens tort consciousness, and what with the neglect in legislating into law no fault liability, and the induction on the roads of heavy duty vehicles beyond the capabilities of the highway system, Indian Transport is acquiring a menancing reputation which makes travel a tryst with death. It looks as if traffic regulations are absent. By these processes of lawlessness, public roads are now lurking death traps. The state must rise to the gravity of the situation and provide road safety measures through active police presence beyond frozen indifference through mobilisation of popular organisations in the field of road safety, frightening publicity for gruesome accidents, and promotion of strict driving licensing and rigorous vehicle invigilation, lest human life should hardly have a chance for highway use. 15. 2 It is true that maximum term of punishment which is provided under section 304-A is only two years. And the discretion is vested in the Trial Court while passing the order of sentence. But even after the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the highest Court of this land, i. e. Supreme Court of India which was made as back as in 1980, the growth of ratio of the accidents continue to be increased considerably in our State and in our country. Because, it seems that the Trial Courts are very leniently dealing with such accused persons who are found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Code by imposing lesser sentence of 3 or 6 months and, because of that, no deterrent effect has been found upon the other bus or truck driver. And, almost every day, one would find in the daily nespapers that some person or persons have lost their lives in the motor road accidents. Today, i am taking up the Criminal Revision applications of the year 1981 and every 5th matter is under Section 304-A of the code and the sentence is either 3 months rigorous Imprisonment or 6 months rigorous Imprisonment. 15. 3 Though, it is none of the functions of this Court to make suitable amendment in Section 304-A of the Code regarding the term of punishment, however, this court can definitely recommend to the state Government and the Central government to look into this matter to provide for higher punishment than the present punishment of the period of two years only as provided in Section 304-A of the Code. By that way only the death toll in accident cases can be curbed and brought under control so that any driver of heavy vehicle like bus or truck be on his guard and cautious while driving his vehicle that if he causes any accident, then he will be severely punished for which he has to undergo 7 or 10 years imprisonment, whichever may be provided by the State or Central government by way of an amendment. If such amendment is made in Section 304-A of the Code and, that will also cause a deterrent effect on other driver of heavy vehicles like bus or truck. 15. 4 However, till then, it has become the duty of the Trial Courts to impose maximum punishment of two years in such cases under Section 304-A of the code though, the discretion is vested in the Trial Courts. But, to exercise their jurisdiction in favour of the accused and to impose lesser punishment than the maximum period of two years, which is provided at pesent under Section 304-A of the Code would amount to using their discretion against the public interest and also against the interest of justice. And, section 304-A of the Code is in the statute since a number of years and at that time there were not so many fatal road accidents and at that time also there were no more vehicles plied on the roads and therefore, years back when the Code was enacted, maximum punishment of two years was provided. However, of course, it is true that so far no amendment is made in Section 304 A of the Code, in spite of the tremendous increase in the road motor accidents. Therefore, it is high time for the Trial Court to see that maximum punishment of two years is awarded to an accused person who is found guilty under Section 304-A of the code till proper amendment for more punishment is made in Section 304-A of the Code. ( 16 ) IN the result, there is no merit in this Revision Application and it fails. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. Bail bonds of the petitioner accused stand cancelled. The petitioner-accused to surrender his bail forthwith. Rule discharged. ( 17 ) AT this stage Mr. ( 16 ) IN the result, there is no merit in this Revision Application and it fails. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. Bail bonds of the petitioner accused stand cancelled. The petitioner-accused to surrender his bail forthwith. Rule discharged. ( 17 ) AT this stage Mr. Deshmukh submitted that the accused who was in jail throughout till today since 1979 and therefore, in order to enable him to approach higher forum, he should be given time for surrendering to his bail. It is rejected as the accused is enjoying the bail since 1979 and if the Court allows such person to remain on bail for any further time, then it will be against the interest of public. Therefore, prayer for continuing the petitioner-accused on bail is hereby rejected. Copies of the judgment be forwarded by the Registry of this Court to the concerned Department of the Central and state Governments. Appeal dismissed. .