JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar dated 14.6.88 by which he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned PP. 3. It will be proper to narrate the facts of the case in nut shell. The petitioner is a driver. Jai Prakash and Jogendra Singh were the two brothers. Jogendra Singh was a constable in Border Security Force. In the evening of 13.8.78, Jai Prakash, Jogendra Singh and Banarasi Das had gone on two bicycles on Ganganagar Padampur road. They started at about 4 p.m. They were returning to Ganganagar on the same bicycles. Jogendra Singh was driving his own bicycle and was a bit ahead of Jai Prakash and Banarasi Das who were on another bicycle. When Jogendra singh reached near the kiln of Gulabram, accused petitioner came driving a truck No. RJK-3093 in a rash and negligent manner and struck against Jogendra Singh. The incident took place at place `D' shown in Ex.P/4, site plan, which is `kaccha foot-path'. Thereafter the truck dragged Jogendra Singh to 22 feet on this `Kachcha foot-path', from place `D' to `A'. Even thereafter he could not control the vehicle. Ultimately the truck struck the boundary wall of the canal and stopped. Jogendra Singh died then and there. 4. PW-2 Ramnath also saw the occurrence. He was present at the spot. Jai Prakash and Banarasi Das reached at the place of occurrence and thereafter Jai Prakash went to the Police Station and report Ex.P/1 was lodged by him at 6.30 p.m. PW-4 Sadhu Singh investigated. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted. Truck was seized from the place of occurrence. It was mechanically examined and was found in order. After investigation challan was presented for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A Indian Penal Code. Charges were framed against the petitioner by the learned trial court. The prosecution examined four witnesses. 5. The plea of the accused petitioner was that the owner of the truck is Durga Das and its driver is Ramchandra. At the relevant time, Ramchandra was driving the truck and the petitioner was sitting on the front side of the truck with him. He stated that they were going to Padampur and at the place of occurrence a boy suddenly came on the Road. At the relevant time, Ramchandra was driving the truck and the petitioner was sitting on the front side of the truck with him. He stated that they were going to Padampur and at the place of occurrence a boy suddenly came on the Road. Ramchandra tried to save him but could not be successful and ultimately the accident was caused. He has further pleaded that Ramchandra immediately went to the owner of the truck to inform him while the petitioner went to the police station to inform. But the police did not hear him and did not take his report. Learned Magistrate also recorded statement of DW-1 Shammi as he was produced in defence. 6. After hearing both the parties, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to three months R.I. for offence under Section 279 Indian Penal Code and one year's R.I. for offence under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code. No sentence of fine was awarded. Accused petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge which was rejected, hence he has come in revision. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that three is concurrent finding of both the lower courts and he is not in a position to show any infirmity in the finding of facts both the courts below. He has therefore, prayed that since the matter has been pending for about 19 years and the petitioner has been in jail for about 18 or 19 days, he may be granted probation under the provisions of the probation of offenders Act. In the alternative he has submitted that he may be released after serving for the period he has already undergone. 8. Reliance has been placed on Jamaluddin v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 474 and Rajaram v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 475 . In Rajaram's case (supra), revision was pending for last ten years and the accused had remained in custody for 16 days. The sentence was reduced to already undergone but fine was enhanced. In Jamaluddin's case (supra), accused had remained in custody for 37 days and sentence was reduced for the period already undergone but fine was enhanced. In Jamaluddin's case (supra), Simrath Singh v. State of Raj., 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 344 was followed and it was directed that the fine was to be paid to the widow of deceased. 9. In Jamaluddin's case (supra), accused had remained in custody for 37 days and sentence was reduced for the period already undergone but fine was enhanced. In Jamaluddin's case (supra), Simrath Singh v. State of Raj., 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 344 was followed and it was directed that the fine was to be paid to the widow of deceased. 9. Keeping in view all these rulings in view and having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice would be made if the sentence of imprisonment is educed to the period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 4000/- for offence under Section 304-A and Rs. 1000/- for offence under Section 279 Indian Penal Code are imposed on the petitioner. 10. The result is that the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 304-A and 279 Indian Penal Code is maintained. His sentence for imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and he is fined Rx. 4,000/- for offence under Section 304-A IP and Rs. 1,000/- for offence under Section 279 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he will further undergo S.I. for a period of six months for offence under Section 304-A and two months for offence under Section 279 Indian Penal Code. The fine so recovered, shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, one month's time is granted to deposit fine.Petition Partly Allowed. *******