JUDGMENT Arm. Kumar Goel, J(Oral): This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by Shri P.C. Sharma, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, dated 11-10-1991. By means of impugned judgment in case No.35/2 of 1989, the respondent has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code for which he was prosecuted on the basis of F.I.R. No.165 of 1988, Police Station, Solan. 2. The respondent was challaned by the police of Police Station, Solan on the averments that on 27th December, 1988 he was driving truck bearing registration No.HPS-657 3. At about 11-30 P.M. while driving the said truck on its way to Shimla, he dashed his truck against a truck bearing registration No. HRA - 3437 which was coming from opposite direction. This resulted in causing injuries to the driver of the truck PW-6 Gainda Ram, who was also the owner of the said truck. Further case of the prosecution against the respondent was that Gainda Ram (PW-6) made a complaint vide Ex.PW-6/A, when the police reached the spot on the next day and undertook the investigation. Both the injured, PW-6 Gianda Ram as well as respondent was got medically examinee by the police from Dr. A.K. Singh (PW-1), Medical Officer. Civil Hospital Solan. A request was made vide Ex. PW- I/A to the doctor for conducting the medical examination of Gianda Ram. Abrasion over right ear and clotted blood marks behind the right ear on his person were found. It was observed by the doctor that person is conscious and behaves normal. Pupils were normal and reacting. No smell of alcohol was found nor was he under intoxicated Medico Legal Certificate was recorded by this doctor (PW-I) on the back side of Ex.PW-1/A vide Ex.PW-1/B. On the same date, police brought the respondent for medical examination and a request was made vide application Ex.PW-1/C for his medical examination. The doctor observed that the person is conscious, well oriented to time and space, pulse was found 70 P.M. B.P. 110/80, pupils were normal and reacting to light, left eye was found to be congested, walk was normal, clotted bleed marks over the lower lip were present, It was further observed by the doctor that smell of alcohol was present, but the person was not intoxicated. Medico Legal Certificate Ex.PW-1/D was issued by the said doctor. 4. Medico Legal Certificate Ex.PW-1/D was issued by the said doctor. 4. Is supports of its case as many as nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The material evidence by the prosecution. The material evidence it this case is that of PW-1 Dr. A.K. Singh, who had examined both, respondent as well as the injured Gainda Ram (PW-6), driver of the truck bearing registration No. HRX - 3437. Besides this, statement of Jarnail Singh (PW-2), the driver engaged by PW-6 as well as that of Charan Singh (PW-3) and of Gainda Ram on one side and that of Ashok Kumar, photographer on the other, are material So far PWs 2,3 and 6 are concerned, they have pledged their oath and supported the prosecution case in its material particulars, which clearly bring home the guilt against the respondent. At this stage it may be appropriate to make a reference to the photographs taken by PW-7 at the instance of the police vide Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5. Photograph Ex.P-4 clearly shows that the vehicle of the complainant Gainda Ram (PW-6) was not only on the extreme left side of the road, but was on the Kachha portion thereof, It appears that the respondent went on the extreme wrong side and thereby hit the truck which had been brought to grinding halt by PW-6. It is not the case of the respondent that there was any mechanical defect resulting in the accident in question Similarly, Ex.P_5 also shows that except the portion of the rear right tyre of truck No. HRX -3437, the entire truck was stationed on the Kachha portion of the road. In this behalf it may be appropriate to mention that man may lie, but circumstances do not. 5. The view taken by the trial court while acquitting the respondent is not sustainable on the basis of evidence on record as well as in the face of Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5, l-.the photographs which clearly show the manner in which the accident had taken place. In fact, this is a case of gross act of rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent which has resulted in causing accident in question thereby damaging front right side of the vehicle of the complainant as well as causing injuries to him. 6. In fact, this is a case of gross act of rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent which has resulted in causing accident in question thereby damaging front right side of the vehicle of the complainant as well as causing injuries to him. 6. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the respondent urged that his client may be dealt with leniently and he may be given the benefit of the Prohibition of Offenders Act, so that he is in a position to reform himself and to remain in the main stream of the society. This prayer made on behalf of the respondent has been vehemently opposed by Shri Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, who has submitted that drivers like the respondent, need to be dealt with severely who put the public safety in jeopardy by rash and negligent driving thereby endangering the human life. He further urged that no mitigating circumstances have been spelt out on behalf of the respondent to take a lenient view. On the other hand, he urged that the punishment under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code is already very mild and while taking the lenient view it will lead to defeat the very purpose of Law. At the risk of repetition, the learned Assistant Advocate General pointed out that this is not a case where any indulgence needs to be shown to the respondent keeping in view the manner in which the accident occurred which is clearly reflected from Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5. 7. After considering the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties, it is held that the judgment passed by the trial court cannot be sustained in any circumstances whatsoever and it is accordingly set aside. Further, on the basis of the evidence, the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code are clearly made out against the respondent. Keeping in view the fact that the accident had taken place as far back as in the year 1988, this Court, is of the view that ends of justice would be met in case the respondent is sent to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 months under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and to undergo similar sentence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code as also to pay fine of Rs.500/-. 1,000/- and to undergo similar sentence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code as also to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, the respondent shall further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences. The respondent is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender in order to undergo the imprisonment.. In the event of fine being recovered, Rs. 1,000/- be paid to Gainda Ram (PW-6). Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.