JUDGMENT This revision has been riled by petitioner Ismile, against the order dated 25.3.92 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chaltarpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 122/89 affirming the order of conviction passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chattarpur, convicting the petitioner under section 279 and 304-A I.P.C. and sentencing him to 3 months R.I. and 1 year R.I. respectively in Criminal Case No. 215/84, through judgment dated 11.12.1989. The Courts below have convicted the petitioner on the evidence of PW-l Mukundilal and PW-K Dr. J.P. Tiwari. PW-l Mukundilal has stated in Para 10f his statement that on the date of accident the petitioner was driving truck No UTE-3725 and he drove the same rashly, crushing his son Surendra Kumar, a child aged 2 years. Shri S.L. Kochar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the two Courts below have erred in relying upon the statement of Mukandilal, who is father of the deceased boy. I have gone through the statement of PW-l Mukandilal and I find that the finding of the Courts below that on the date of accident, the petitioner drove his truck rashly hitting Surendra Kumar resulting in his' death, is well merited and calls for no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Shri Kochar, relying upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Praklish Chandra Agnihotri v. State of M.P. reported in 1991 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 146 submitted that the present incident took place in the year 1984 the petitioner has already remained in jail for about a week; he has a family to support and as such he should not be sent back to jail to serve out the remaining part of his sentence. Shri D.D. Bhargava, Panel Lawyer for the State, submitted that in view of the facts of the case the sentence imposed by the Courts below cannot be said to be excessive. After having considered all the relevant aspects of the matter this Court is of the view that it would not serve any purpose, if the petitioner is sent to jail again, after 10 years. Instead it would be proper to direct him to pay a substantial amount of fine and the same may be directed to be given to the father of the deceased child as compensation. In the result this revision is allowed in part. Instead it would be proper to direct him to pay a substantial amount of fine and the same may be directed to be given to the father of the deceased child as compensation. In the result this revision is allowed in part. Petitioner convictions under section 279 and 304A, I.P.C. are maintained. However, the sentence of 3 months R.I. and 1 year R.I. are reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. He is further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In case, he fails to pay the fine, he shall undergo imprisonment for 6 months R.I. The petitioner shall deposit the amount of fine in the Trial Court within 2 months from today. In case, the fine is deposited the same may be paid to Mukandilal, father of the deceased' Surendra Kumar as compensation under section 357 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the petitioner will be cancelled on his depositing the amount of fine.