S. I. JAFRI, J. Balbir has filed this revision against his conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A, I. P. C. and sentence of 6 months R. I. andl-1/2 years R. I. under the aforesaid sections of the Penal Code respectively recorded in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 1989 passed by Sri N. S. Gupta, Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr while dismissing his appeal arising out of judgment and order dated 19-6-1989 passed in Criminal Case No. 2378 of 1987 (Crime No. 813 of 1981) by Judicial Magistrate I Class Bulandshahr convicting the applicant under Sections 279 and 304-A, I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for a period of six months under Section 279,1. P. C. and 1-1/2 years R. I. under Section 304-A, I. P. C. 2. This revision was admitted on the question of sentence only by this Court on 17-1-1990. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant was working as a Driver of D. T C. Bus No. DHP 2883 on 17-11-1981. The case of the prosecution further is that on 17-11-1981 at about 4. 45 p. m. , the applicant was found driving the aforesaid bus in a negligent manner and while reaching the Bus Stand Bulandshahr he had nocked down Devi Dutt Gir who was standing at the gate of U. P. S. R. T C. Bus Stand, Bulandshahr. The applicant drove his Bus from the gate of the Roadways in rash and negligent manner without blowing the horn resulting in injuries to the deceased who succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Constable Mulki Singh and Veer Pal Singh who were on duty at U. P. S. R. T. C. Bus Stand, Bulandshahr witnessed the occurrence. Immediately after the occurrence Mulki Singh (P. W 3) arrested the applicant and brought him to the P. S. Kotwali where he dictated the report of the occurrence at 5. 30 p. m. the same day. It was mentioned in the report that the applicant had caused the death of Ravi Dutt Gir on account of driving of the vehicle negligently and without blowing horn. On the basis of the aforesaid report chick report was prepared by Sri Niwas (P. W. 2) Head Constable of P. S. Kotwali and he also registered case against the applicant under Section 279/304-A, I. P. C. against the accused in the General Diary of the Police Station. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid report chick report was prepared by Sri Niwas (P. W. 2) Head Constable of P. S. Kotwali and he also registered case against the applicant under Section 279/304-A, I. P. C. against the accused in the General Diary of the Police Station. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and stated that he was falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. However, he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 5. The investigation of the case was entrusted to Bhagwan Singh (P. W 6) who after investigation submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. 6. In support of the prosecution as many as six witnesses were examined and out of them Mulki Singh (P. W. 3), Veer Pal Singh (P. W. 4) were examined as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. 7. Mulki Singh is the first informant and he had promptly lodged the report of the occurrence at 5. 30 p. m. at the Police Station Kotwali. He is no doubt a police constable but he is a natural witness because he was on duty at the Bulandshahr Bus Stand when the occurrence had taken place. The evidence of the witness cannot be brushed aside on the score of his being a police constable. Both the Courts below have found Mulki Singh as a truthful witness. I have also gone through his evidence and I am in complete agreement with the Court below that Mulki Singh is a reliable witness. 8. Veer Pal Singh is another witness who has fully corroborated the evidence of Mulki Singh (P. W. 3 ). Veer Pal Singh is also a police constable but there is no infirmity in his evidence to discredit his testimony. His evidence was also accepted by the Courts below and I have no reason to discredit his testimony. He is also a reliable witness. 9. I am, therefore, fully satisfied that the Courts below have rightly convicted the applicant under Sections 304-A and 279, I. P. C. and as such the order of conviction passed by the Courts below deserve to be affirmed. 10. Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the occur rence, in this case has taken place about 9 years before and under the circumstance the learned Counsel submitted that no useful purpose will be served in sending the applicant to serve out the sentence. 10. Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the occur rence, in this case has taken place about 9 years before and under the circumstance the learned Counsel submitted that no useful purpose will be served in sending the applicant to serve out the sentence. It was further submitted by him that the applicant is not a previous convict and he is the sole earning member of the family. Under the circumstance if he is sent to jail, the members of his family will be put to starvation and the education of his children may be adversely affected. 11. I have given my utmost consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and I also feel that instead of sending the applicant to jail for serving out the sentence, imposition of fine on him will meet the ends of justice. The learned Counsel also states that the applicant is not a previous convict. Under the circumstances I propose that the applicant be sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to payment of fine to undergo one years R. I. and also the period of sentence already undergone by him. 12. In the result, this revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under Sections 279 and 304, I. P. C. is affirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment is suspended and instead he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- within three months from today. The applicant shall deposit the aforesaid amount in the Court of the C. J. M. , Bulandshahr within three months from today. Out of the fine deposited by him, Rs. 4,000/-shall go to the heirs of Devi Dutt Gir and the remaining Rs. 1,000/- shall go to the State Exchequer. The C. J. M. is directed to disburse the amount of Rs. 4,000/- to the heirs of Devi Dutt Gir. He is also directed to send his compliance report to this Court within three months from today. 13. With the directions as indicated above, this revision is disposed of finally. Partly allowed. .