Honble KAPUR, J-—This revision petition is directed against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun in appeal against the judgment of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under sections 304A, 338, 279 and 337 IPC. The maximum 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 gives this facility on the ground that he was above 21 years of age and there were no circumstance on account of which this facility could by granted. 3. Under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act it is optional for the court to grant probation to a person above 21 years of age if the circumstances so justify hence, the petitioner has pointed out the circumstance in which the occurrence occurred. The bullock cart in which the complainant his father and brother were travelling was coming towards Mahavirji and when in was near a bridge there were two trucks from behind. One truck was driven by the appellant and there was on more which tried to over take the petitioner truck with the result when he found that bullock cart is infront of him and he tried to apply his brakes but there was one sufficient time to apply before he could hit the bullock cart. His case is that the hose pip 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 of his guilt on this ground because if he had been driven carefulle he could avoid the accident. His rash and negligent driving has been provedy but considering the circumstance that his brakes suddenly failed and that another truck also came behind, he lost his control, the petitioner can be given benefit of probation. 5. This revision is accordingly accepted. The 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 AMJM Hindaun 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.