S. M. SONI, J. ( 1 ) * * * * ( 2 ) ON the question of sentence, Mr. Budhbhatti contended that one year R. I. with fine of Rs. 500. 00, in default two months S. I. is a harsh sentence under Sec. (Only a part of the Judgment approved for reporting is published.) 304-A of I. P. C. Sec. 304-A of I. P. C. provides for the maximum sentence of two years with fine or with both. So far as the sentence is concerned, the Court should take judicial notice of the fact of the latest statistics. Latest statistics shows that on an average almost one accident occurs every minute in the country and almost one person was killed every 8. 5 minutes in the accident which results in a loss of Rs. 2000. 00 crores a month. Says Dr. S. M. Sarin, Head of the Department of Environment and Road Traffic Safety Central Road, Research Institute, New Delhi. The level of accident risk was very high in the country. Majority of accidents are caused because of negligent and reckless driving. Under the circumstances, the punishment should deter the driver from being negligent or rashness or careless as to vehicle. Liberal view, may not allow them to be vigilent to accident, even if fatal they may escape with a short sentence. The purpose of punishment and the intention of the Legislature is to deter rash and negligent drivers to be on roads. Liberal views have criminalised accidents by passing murder in accidents. It is now time to amend the provision of Sec. 304-A to make it more strigent on the question of punishment. The burden to prove that it is a pure and simple accident should be on the wrong doer. Therefore, present state of affair calls for strict view of such matters. In my opinion, the sentence awarded is just and proper. ( 3 ) PETITIONER is also sentenced to suffer R. I. for 4 months and fine of rs. 500/- under Sec. 279 I. P. C. So far as that sentence is concerned, it pales in insignificance in view of the order to run the sentences concurrently and, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the same. ( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Budhbhatti contended that the petitioner should be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and should be released on probation. ( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Budhbhatti contended that the petitioner should be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and should be released on probation. Sec. 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act provides for removal of disqualification attaching to the conviction. In all probability, if the petitioner is released on probation, he will be employed again and in that case he will be again on the road. I am of the opnion that the licence of the driver of a vehicle once convicted under any provision pertaining to rash and negligent driving should automatically stand revoked and he should not be permitted to drive any vehicle on road. I am of the opinion that there are certain acts which should never be repeated or allowed to be repeated and one of them is rash and negligent driving. It is said that once such person sits on steering their spirit of rashness and negligence revives and they forget their responsibility to society. Such convict if allowed again to drive the vehicle, can one imagine the fate of a complainant or witness who had deposed against him whom convicts hold, responsible for his conviction, if he happens to meet him on road either as padestrian or on a lighter vehicle than one driven by the convict. If the petitioner is released on probation, he may again be driving vehicles as his licence is not cancelled. Under these circumstances, I am of the opnion that not only the petitioner, but no convict of vehicular accident be given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. I, therefore, refuse the request of the learned Advocate for the petitioner for relase on probation. .