JUDGMENT Sorinder Sarup, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal recorded by Shri K. P Singh Judicial Magistrate (II), Amb District Una dated 5th October, 1989 where by he has acquitted Gurdeep Singh respondent for an offence under sections 279/337/358, J. P. a 2. The prosecution case was that -he respondent was driving bus No. PJU-8651 from Hoshiarpur to Chintpurni in a rash and negligent manner and as a result thereof he collided the rear portion of the bus with another bus I1IK-2032 at about 10.45 am at a place near Sidh Chaler, This resulted in injuries to a passenger Ramesh Chand. The matter having been reported to the police, FIR Ex PW9/A was registered against the respondent The police visited the spot, prepared the spot map Ex PW-9/A, impounded both the vehicles involved in the accident vide Fard Ex PW-l/A and took the photographs marked A to E and recorded the statements of the witnesses. After investigation had been completed, the police presented the challan and the accused was summoned to face trial. Charge was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilt 12 witnesses were examined at the trial In his statement under section 313, Cr P.C, he stated that he is innocent and the witness have deposed against him at the instance of the police. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence, 3. The learned trial Court after discussing the evidence, has acquitted the respondent mainly on the ground that though some of the witnesses, Including the injured have stated that the bus in question was being driven at a fast speed, but, out of them PW 2 Jaswant Singh, who was sitting in the other bus stated that he came to know about the accident when he got down from he bus. He also stated that from the seat where he was sitting, he was m t able to see the bus being driven by the respondent. On the basis of this statement, the lower Court has held that this witness his not seen the accident PW-3 Parkash Cha id is the conductor of the bus, He stated that the injured vomitting and keeping his head and arm out of the window time and again in spite of his warning for not doing so. On the basis of this statement, the lower Court has held that this witness his not seen the accident PW-3 Parkash Cha id is the conductor of the bus, He stated that the injured vomitting and keeping his head and arm out of the window time and again in spite of his warning for not doing so. According to this witness though the bus was running fast but was not being driven in a rash and negligent manner. 4. PW-7 Ramesh Chand, the injured witness has stated that he was sitting on the last seat in the bus towards the drivers side and the respondent was driving the bus rashly and with fast speed. His statement has been discarded on the ground that it is of no value because while sitting at the rear portion of the bus he could not ascertain whether a vehicle which is coming from the front or opposite side is really fast because generally it is not possible to see any vehicle coming towards the opposite side. 5. With due respect to the learned trial Court this observation and finding is grossly illegal. It is beyond comprehension as to how a person who is sitting at the rear side of a bus, even behind the driver, cannot see what is happening in the opposite direction or in the front of the bus especially when a bus coming from the opposite side is being driven at a fast speed in a rash and negligent manner. One fails to see how the learned trial Court has arrived at a conclusion to the contrary This finding, being patently illegal, is liable to be reversed and it is ordered accordingly. 6. Even otherwise most of the other witnesses have stated that the bus being driven by the respondent, was being driven at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner. (Reference in this regard is invited to the statement of PW-2 Jaswant Singh and PW-3 Parkash Chand, already discussed above) From the evidence of these three witnesses alone, one can safely came to a conclusion that the respondent is guilty of rash and negligent driving and causing injury to Ramesh Chand. 7. (Reference in this regard is invited to the statement of PW-2 Jaswant Singh and PW-3 Parkash Chand, already discussed above) From the evidence of these three witnesses alone, one can safely came to a conclusion that the respondent is guilty of rash and negligent driving and causing injury to Ramesh Chand. 7. In fairness to the learned Counsel for the respondent, he has cited Abdul Ghani Nasurullah v. Emperor, AIR 1938 Sind 86 and Emperor v. Homnarain Sukhailal Kachhi, AIR 1934 Nagpur 65, I have gone through both these authorities but I find that they are distinguishable cases. Moreover, they are far beyond point of time and much water has flown under the bridge since a plethora of case law has come during the intervening period. The latest view is that once it is proved that a vehicle is being driven at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner, and if it meets with an accident, causing injuries or death of another person, offence of rash an4 negligent driving stands proved. 8. A ruling of this Court reported as State of H. P. v Jagat Ram, 1992 (?) Sim LC 30, has also been brought to my notice. Therein, it has been laid down that unless the approach of the trial Court is found grossly unreasonable or perverse, order of acquittal is not to be lightly set aside In the present case, it has been found that the learned trial Court has given a perverse and unreasonable finding contrary to common sense and factual position, that a person sitting on the rear of a vehicle behind the drivers seat is not in a position to notice whether a vehicle coming from the opposite side is being driven fast or in a rash and negligent manner. There is nothing on the record in the present case to show that the view of injured Ramesh Chand was blocked or that he could not see what was happening towards the opposite side of the road on which the bus, in which he was sitting was being driven. So this authority is also of no avail to the respondent 9. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted to the extent that the acquittal of the respondent for the aforesaid offences is set aside. He is held guilty of the same and convicted accordingly. 10. So this authority is also of no avail to the respondent 9. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted to the extent that the acquittal of the respondent for the aforesaid offences is set aside. He is held guilty of the same and convicted accordingly. 10. Coming to the question of sentence, it will be seen that the accident took place almost 9 years ago. The trial Court took about a year, to decide and thereafter this appeal has been pending in this Court since 1991. In other words, the appeal has also been pending for about 6 years in this Court. The respondent has gone through the trauma of the trial and the suspense over his head during the pendency of the appeal as to what will be its ultimate fate. Considering all the circumstances in their totality, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met by giving him the benefit of probation instead of awarding a substantive sentence of punishment. 11. Consequently, it is directed that the respondent will enter into a probationary bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year During this period he shall report to the lower Court and on its direction, if so desired appear before the Police Station concerned regularly. Order Accordingly.