JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana. J 1. The Petitioner on having been tried for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code, by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, was convicted for the said offences Upon conviction the learned Magistrate vide his judgment dated 22-12-1988/27-2-1989 instead of imposing any sentence on the Petitioner, gave him the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and ordered his release on his furnishing personal bond with one surety to appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so during a period of two years and in the mean-time to keep peace and be of good behaviour. 2. The State felt aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate directing the release of the Petitioner under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 1958. It accordingly went up in appeal under Section 11(2) and (4) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1). Shimla The appeal filed by the State was allowed on 2-3-199(sic). The order of the learned Magistrate releasing the Petitioner under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, was set aside and instead the Petitioner was sentenced as under: Offence Sentence 304 I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000. 337 I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500 338 I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500, No Separate sentence for the offence under Section 279, Indian Penal Code was imposed. In the event of non-payment of fine, the Petitioner was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 15 days on each of the three counts. The substantive sentences of imprisonment on each of the three counts were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The Petitioner feeling aggrieved by the sentence imposed upon him by the learned first appellate court, has come up before this Court by way of the present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 11(4) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 4. Be it stated that the conviction imposed on him by the learned Magistrate was not assailed by the Petitioner by way of an appeal or otherwise before the learned first appellate court. 5. 4. Be it stated that the conviction imposed on him by the learned Magistrate was not assailed by the Petitioner by way of an appeal or otherwise before the learned first appellate court. 5. Since the conviction imposed by the learned Magistrate on the Petitioner was not assailed by him before the learned first appellate court, such question is not open to challenge in the present revision petition. The only question which requires determination is whether the learned first appellate court was justified in imposing sentence on the Petitioner by setting aside the order of his release under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 1958. 6. According to the prosecution story, the Petitioner on 12-5-1984 was the driver of the bus No. HPS-7699 running between Shimla and Nankhari. About 4 K.M. away from Narkanda, as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the Petitioner, the bus went off the road and rolled down into a Nallah. As a result of such accident as many as 21 persons lost their lives. Besides, 43 persons sustained grievous and 20 persons sustained simple injuries. 7. In Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab 1980 CriLJ 11, the accused was a truck driver. In an accident caused by him, a scooterist was killed. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years. In the petition for special leave before the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was contended that the sentence imposed was excessive especially having regard to the fact that the accused had a large family to maintain and the proprietor of the truck had left the family of the accused in the cold. The Hon'ble apex Court while refusing to interfere with the sentence imposed observed that when a life has been lost and the circumstances of the driving are harsh, no compassion could be shown. The apex Court quoted with approval the words of Lord Greene M.R.: It scarcely lies in the mouth of the truck driver who plays with fire to complain of burnt fingers. 8. Again in State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju AIR 1987 SC 861, the accused therein had caused an accident killing one person and injuring Anr. During the trial, he pleaded guilty. He was accordingly convicted for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code besides other offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 8. Again in State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju AIR 1987 SC 861, the accused therein had caused an accident killing one person and injuring Anr. During the trial, he pleaded guilty. He was accordingly convicted for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code besides other offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Upon conviction, the trial Magistrate imposed sentences of fine of Rs. 25 for the offence under Section 279, Rs. 50 for the offence under Section 337 and Rs. 250 for the offence under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code. On an appeal for enhancement of sentence earned before the High Court of Karnataka by the State under Section 377, Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court declined to interfere with the sentence by observing in the following terms: The judgment of conviction and sentence has been delivered on January 30, 1981. We are today at the fag-end of January, 1963. The award has been hanging over the head of the accused for a very long time. Which should have made him undergo a lot of mental agony and torture. It is no doubt tree that one death has taken place and injuries have been caused to one person. The sentence imposed appears to be a lenient one. Therefore, considering the fact the appeal is pending for a long time and it must have caused the accused a lot of mental anxiety, we think that the appeal should be dismissed with an observation that in such serious cases the court is expected to take a serious view of the matter and not to be lenient in such matters. With this observation the appeal is dismissed. 9. On further appeal before the apex Court by the State, the sentence for the offence under Section 304-A as imposed by the trial Megistrate and affirmed in appeal by the High Court was enhanced to rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 1,000. In default of payment of fine, rigorous improvement for a period of two months was imposed. The Hon'ble apex Court observed: ...Considerations of undue sympathy in such cases will not only lead to miscarriage of justice but will also undermine the confidence of the public in the efficacy of the criminal judicial system. It need be hardly pointed out that the imposition of a sentence of fine of Rs. The Hon'ble apex Court observed: ...Considerations of undue sympathy in such cases will not only lead to miscarriage of justice but will also undermine the confidence of the public in the efficacy of the criminal judicial system. It need be hardly pointed out that the imposition of a sentence of fine of Rs. 250 on the driver of a Motor Vehicle for an offence under Section 304-A, I P C. and that too without any extenuating or mitigating circumstance is bound to shock the conscience of anyone and will unmistakably leave the impression that the trial was a mockery of justice. 10. In the present case, as stated above, the Petitioner with his rash and negligent driving besides causing grievous injuries to 43 persons and simple injuries to twenty persons, has taken the lives of as many as 21 persons, which is no less than a massacre. He, therefore, deserves no leniency at the hands of the court. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly set aside the order of the learned trial Magistrate releasing the Petitioner under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and by imposing the various sentences of imprisonment and fine, as detailed above. The impugned order of sentence does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety and the same does not call for any interference in this revision petition. 11. Sub-section (4) of Section 11, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 specifically provides that when an order has been made under Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act in respect of an offender, the Appellate Court of the High Court in the exercise of its revisional power may set aside such order and in lieu thereof pass sentence on such offender according to law. 12. Consequently, there being no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. The Petitioner, who is on bail shall surrender himself to the bail bonds before the learned trial Court within four weeks from today to receive and undergo the sentence imposed upon him, failing which the learned trial Court will issue distress warrants against him for his committal to jail for undergoing the sentence imposed.