JUDGMENT Ashok Agarwal, JJ. - The present appeal is filed by the State for enhancement of sentence for an offence under sections 304(a), 379 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 116 and 89 read with section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Respondent-accused has been released on his entering into a bond of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. The incident in question has taken place on 20.1.1984 at about 1 a.m. on the Sakri-Nawapur road, in front of Dahiwal Village near Gangti river. At the relevant time, the accused is alleged to have driven his truck MHS 8490 in rash and negligent manner and dashed a stationary truck MHS 697 which was being loaded by the labourers of the stationary truck. On account of the impact one Ramu Tanu died on the spot, two others namely, Waghya Kutrya and Shrawan Govinda succumbed to their injuries later on in the hospital. One Pandit Manglu sustained a grievous injury. The accused did not render first aid to the injured and did not report the accident at the nearest Police Station. He made good his escape. He was apprehended at about 10.00 p.m. on the night of the incident. At the trial, the prosecution submitted a list of as many as 25 witnesses. The witnesses include the injured witness Pandit Manglu. It is possible that the other witnesses include eye-witnesses to the incident. The Learned Magistrate, Sakri, before whom the prosecution was lodged, commenced the trial by adopting a summary procedure Two witnesses were examined one was Shri N.S. Dalvi, Inspector of Police who is the complainant in the case. The prosecution also examined P.W. 2 Madhavrao Mali who is a panch witness. At this stage, the accused filed an application Ext. 15 pleading guilty and prayed for mercy. In the application the accused stated that this was the first offence which he had committed without any intention that he was repenting for that act. He has further mentioned that he is the only earning member of his family, 5 to 6 persons were depending upon him his old aged mother is ill continuously and if he is sent to jail it would cause an irreparable loss. He prayed that he be released on executing a bond of good behaviour. The application Exh. 15 bears-the say of the Assistant Public Prosecutor. He prayed that he be released on executing a bond of good behaviour. The application Exh. 15 bears-the say of the Assistant Public Prosecutor. It seems that initially he endorsed "no objection for releasing him on good behaviour on conviction". The initial word "no" appears to have been thereafter scored off and the scoring bears initials of the learned Assistant. Public Prosecutor. 3. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Magistrate has convicted and sentenced the accused. As already stated, the State has preferred the present appeal for enhancement. I have heard Shri Bagwe, the Learned Public Prosecutor in support of the appeal. I have also heard Shri Mundargi who appears on behalf of the accused. In my view, the impugned order releasing the accused on a bond is unconscionably lenient. The incident in question has caused the death of persons and has caused grievous injury to one person. In my view, the said sentence appears to be a result of plea bargaining. A plea bite sentence imposed upon the accused cannot be upheld. 4. In the instant case, I find that the order of conviction is not passed on the evidence which has been lead on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution at that stage had' examined only the complainant and die panch witness. It was at this stage that the accused pleaded guilty by filing his application Ext. 15. The plea was accepted and the impugned order came to be passed. In my view having regard to the gravity of the offence, it would be in the interest of justice to remand back the case to the Trial Court for recording the entire evidence which the prosecution may desire to lead. It is needless to state that the Trial Magistrate, while deciding the case, will ignore the plea of guilt radically the accused vide his application Ext. 15 and decide the case on the evidence to be adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 5. At this stage, Shri Bagwe the learned Public Prosecutor urges that the Learned Magistrate has erred in following the summary procedure in view of the fact that three lives have been lost and one has sustained a grievous injury. The Trial Magistrate ought to be directed to follow a regular procedure of summons case. 5. At this stage, Shri Bagwe the learned Public Prosecutor urges that the Learned Magistrate has erred in following the summary procedure in view of the fact that three lives have been lost and one has sustained a grievous injury. The Trial Magistrate ought to be directed to follow a regular procedure of summons case. The record as at present stands does not given any indication whether the prosecution had objected to the summary procedure being adopted by the Learned Magistrate. It will be open to the parties to advance their respective contemnors in regard to the procedure to be followed during the trial of the accused. 6. In the result, the impugned order of conviction and the order releasing the accused on bond is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Trial Court. After evidence which will be led on behalf of the prosecution is recorded the Trial Magistrate will proceed to decide the case on its own merits and in accordance with law. Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. Appeal partly allowed.