Judgment KAPUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the ORDER passed by the Additional sessions Judge, Hindaun in. appeal against the ORDER of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate,hindaun by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 304 A, 338,279 and 337 I. P. C. The minimum sentence imposed is six months and all sentences have been directed to run concurrently. ( 2 ) BOTH the courts below have found the petitioner guilty of those offences by holding that he was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. His contention is that it was his first offence, and he could have been granted Probation under section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act but the learned Additional Sessions Judge refused to give this facility on the ground that he was above 21 years of age and there were no circumstances on account of which this facility could be granted. ( 3 ) UNDER Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, it is optional for the court to grant probation to a person about 21 years of age if the circumstances so justified hence, the petitioner has pointed out the circumstances in which the occurrence occurred. The bullock cart in which the complainant, his father and brother were, travelling was coming towards Mahavirji and when it was near a bridge, there were two trucks from behind. One truck was driven by the appellant and there was one more which tried to overtake the petitioners truck with the result when he found that bullock cart infront him he tried to apply his brakes but there was no sufficient time to apply before be could hit the bullock cart. His case is that the pipe burst and on account of this, the brakes failed. Thereafter, the truck was not under his control. According to him, the accident occurred because the truck behind him overtook him at a place which was a bridge and at a time when there was a bullock cart already infront of his truck. ( 4 ) THE driver of the other truck has not been tried for any offence. It can be said that the driver of that truck was also rash and negligent in overtaking the truck at a place which was a bridge and this at a time when one truck was already going ahead of him. ( 4 ) THE driver of the other truck has not been tried for any offence. It can be said that the driver of that truck was also rash and negligent in overtaking the truck at a place which was a bridge and this at a time when one truck was already going ahead of him. However, the petitioner cannot be absolved his guilt on this ground because if he had been driving carefully he could avoid the accident His rash and negligent driving has been proved, but considering the circumstances that his brakes suddenly failed and that another truck also came and he lost his control the petitioner can be given benefit of probation. ( 5 ) THIS revision is accordingly accepted, 1 fie conviction of the petitioner is maintained but he shall be released on probation on his furnishing a surety and personal bond in the sum of Rs, 3,000/- to the satisfaction of AMDM Hindaum to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of three years and in the meantime to keep the piece and be of a good behaviour. Revision allowed accordingly.