JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---The applicant was tried for offences punishable under sections 304-A, 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. and under section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Satara. Vide his order dated 8-2-89, the said Court found him guilty for the said offences and sentenced him in the manner stated hereinafter. (i) Under section 304-A I.P.C. to suffer 18 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer 3 months R.I.; (ii) Under section 279 I.P.C. to suffer 4 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer one month's R.I.; (iii) Under section 337 I.P.C., to suffer 4 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer one month's R.I.; (iv) Under section 338 I.P.C., to suffer 18 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for 4 months; and (v) Under section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to suffer 18 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/-, in default to suffer 1 month's R.I. Aggrieved by the said convictions and sentences, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1989 in the Sessions Court, Satara. The said appeal was decided on 16-4-1992 by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Satara. The Appellate Court acquitted the applicant for the offence under section 338 of I.P.C. Although it affirmed the conviction of the applicant on the remaining counts but modified the sentence in the manner stated hereinafter. (i) Under section 304-A I.P.C. to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months; (ii) Under section 279 I.P.C. to suffer R.I. for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one month; (iii) Under section 337 I.P.C. to suffer R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one month; and (iv) Under section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act to suffer R.I. for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one month. Aggrieved by the said orders, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one month; and (iv) Under section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act to suffer R.I. for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one month. Aggrieved by the said orders, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 2.The concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below is that on 9-2-87, at about 2.00 p.m., as a result of the applicant driving his jeep in a rash and negligent manner near M.S.E.B. office at Godoli, one Ashok Bapusaheb Dhumal who was coming from the opposite direction on a bullet motor-cycle, killed and Shankarrao Mohite and Pralhad More received injuries. I find that the said finding is based on good evidence. The spot panchanama shows that the jeep was being driven by the applicant on the right side of the road and that it had turned turtle. This clearly shows that it was being driven rashly and at a very high speed. The applicant does not dispute that he was driving the said jeep. The evidence of P.W. 3 Shankarrao Mohite, an independent witness also shows that the applicant was driving his jeep in a rash manner and on the wrong side of the road. In my view, the Appellate Court was justified in sustaining the conviction of the applicant for offences under sections 304-A, 279 and 337 of I.P.C. and section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3.At this stage, Mr. Mohite, learned Counsel for the applicant gave up his endeavour of assailing the judgment of the Appellate Court on merits and switched on to the wiser option of pressing his case on the point of sentence. Mr. Mohite urged that more than 10 years have passed since the incident took place and there is nothing to indicate that the applicant is a previous convict. He urged that it would be more just and equitable if the jail sentence of the applicant on all the counts is reduced to the period already undergone and a fine is imposed on him which should be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. At the first instance, I was dis-inclined to accept the submission of Mr. At the first instance, I was dis-inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Mohite because a human life has been lost but on a deeper reflection, I realized that if the applicant served a period of six months R.I., what would the family of the deceased gain. Consequently, I accepted the submission of Mr. Mohite, I may mention that so far as offences punishable under sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. are concerned, the applicant has been ordered to pay the maximum fine as stipulated thereunder. So far as the offence under section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act is concerned, I find that the maximum fine thereunder is Rs. 2,000/- and since the applicant has been ordered to pay Rs. 500/-, it does not deserve to be increased. However, in my view, fine of RS. 3000/ which the applicant has been directed to pay by the Appellate Court for the offence under section 304-A I.P.C. is grossly inadequate. In my view, the ends of justice warrant that the applicant should pay an additional fine of Rs. 25,000/- on the said count. In case, the applicant deposits the fine of Rs. 25,000/-, the whole of it shall be paid as compensation to the legal heir/heirs of the deceased, as the case may be. 4.In the result this revision is partly allowed and partly dismissed. I uphold the conviction as well as the sentence of fine imposed on the applicant for the offences punishable under sections 304-A, 279 and 337 I.P.C. and section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act. I, however, reduce the jail sentence of the applicant to the period already undergone by him for offences punishable under sections, 279, 337 I.P.C. and 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act. I also reduce the jail sentence of the applicant for the offence under section 304-A I.P.C. to the period already undergone by him provided, in lieu of the remaining period of his jail sentence on the said count, he pays a fine of Rs. 25,000/- within six months from today, failing which, he would undergo the substantive sentence for the offence under section 304-A I.P.C. This fine would be deposited by the applicant in the trial Court. 25,000/- within six months from today, failing which, he would undergo the substantive sentence for the offence under section 304-A I.P.C. This fine would be deposited by the applicant in the trial Court. As soon as it is deposited, the trial Court shall inform the legal heir/ heirs of the deceased Ashok Bapusaheb Dhumal, as the case may be, about this compensation and shall pay the whole amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the entitled legal heir/ heirs, as the case may be. In case, the applicant does not pay the fine within the stipulated time, he shall undergo the substantive jail sentence imposed on him for the offence under section 304-A I.P.C. Rule is disposed off in the aforesaid manner. It would be open to the trial Court to accept the fine on production of a certified copy of this judgment, which in case, an application is made shall be issued within 2 months from today. Revision partly allowed.