Judgment A. K. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. ( 2 ) THIS criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 9th June, 1995 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3. Jodhpur in Criminal Misc. Petn. No. 4/95 Dwarka Das v. State of Rajasthan whereby the conviction of the accused-petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was upheld but sentences imposed under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code were reduced to simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 279 and simple imprisonment of three months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. It was further directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that in the event of default in payment of fine the accused-petitioner shall undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days and one month respectively. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court had committed a grave error by holding the petitioner guilty under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also committed a grave error by maintaining the conviction of the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution evidence is not sufficient to prove the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and, therefore, he is entitled to be acquitted on both the counts. ( 4 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and prayed for the dismissal of the petition. ( 5 ) THE facts of the case may be briefly summarised as below : ( 6 ) ON 4th October, 1981 Daulal L. C. No. 21 lodged the First Information Report Ex. P-1 at Police station Sardarpura, Jodhpur. According to the First Information Report ex. P-1 Daulal L. C. No. 21 and Heera Ram L. C. No. 1294 went towards M. G. Hospital for duty at about 7. 45 p. m. when they were going towards the M. G. Hospital as soon as they reached near the office of Janta Party a city bus No. M. P. W. 7620 came from the side of M. G. Hospital. 45 p. m. when they were going towards the M. G. Hospital as soon as they reached near the office of Janta Party a city bus No. M. P. W. 7620 came from the side of M. G. Hospital. The city bus collided against a man who was riding over the bicycle. After the accident the man who was riding on the bicycle fell on the ground and the city bus stopped. When the injured was attended to by constables they found that he was unconscious and had injury on the right side of his lip and blood was coming out from his left ear as well as from the injury on the lip. Some blood had already fallen on the road. The injured was taken to M. G. Hospital in a taxi. Daulal remained at the spot and he sent information at the Police Station. ( 7 ) ON the basis of the First Information report submitted by Daulal the Police registered a case under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The injured Pyare Lal died on 5th October, 1981 at 12. 15 A. M. The Post-mortem examination of his dead body was conducted and it was found that his death occurred due to coma as a result of head injury mentioned in the report. As many as four injuries were found on his body. ( 8 ) AFTER completing the investigation the police submitted a charge-sheet in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2. , Jodhpur. During trial the case was transferred to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur. ( 9 ) ACCUSED Dwarka Das was charged under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/112 of the M. T. A. Act. He pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him. The prosecution examined Daulal P. W. 1, Heera Ram P. W. 2, Dr. S. B. Mathur P. W. 3, Ganpat Singh P. W. 4, Gyan Chand P. W. 5, Murlidhar P. W. 6, Ratanlal P. W. 7, Vijay Raj P. W. 8, Khet Singh P. W. 9, Jasraj P. W. 10 and Hanuman Singh P. W. 11 in support of its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He did not produce any witness in defence. In his statement he denied that any accident had occurred as alleged by the prosecution. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He did not produce any witness in defence. In his statement he denied that any accident had occurred as alleged by the prosecution. ( 10 ) DAULAL P. W. 1 and Heera Ram P. W. 2 are the two eye-witnesses in whose presence the incident occurred. Both of them gave evidence to the effect that when they reached the office of Janta Party they saw that a city bus came, it was moving at speed and was wavering and the city bus hit a man going on a bicycle and in consequence that man fell on the ground and lost his consciousness and he was taken to the hospital for treatment. The trial Court held that the charges under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code were established beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court, therefore, convicted the accused under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and imposed sentences. In appeal the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence as mentioned above. ( 11 ) I have carefully considered the evidence of Daulal P. W. 1 and Heera Ram P. W. 2 who were the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Both of them are independent witnesses. The incident occurred in their presence. Both of them has stated that bus was being driven in a wavering manner and at swift speed and that the bus hit a cycle sawar who after the incident fell on the ground and lost his conciousness and was taken to the hospital. Having regard to the place of incident and time of incident and the manner in which the bus was being driven, I have no doubt in it that the petitioner who was the driver of the bus must be held guilty of driving the bus rashly as well as negligently, in a wavering manner and at an excessive speed inside the populated area and not taking any steps for avoiding the incident. I, therefore, find no force in the submissions that there is no evidence to convict the accused-petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. I, therefore, find no force in the submissions that there is no evidence to convict the accused-petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. ( 12 ) SO far as sentence of imprisonment is concerned the learned Additional Sessions Judge has reduced the sentence of imprisonment to one mouth for the offence punishable under Section 279 and to three months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The incident occurred in October 1981. A period of about sixteen years has passed. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case it would not be in the interest of justice to send the petitioner to jail. It is, therefore, proper to enhance the sentence of fine in place of maintaining the sentence of imprisonment. The offence punishable under Section 279 as well as 304-A of the Indian Penal Code are punishable with imprisonment or with fine. ( 13 ) THE petition is, therefore, partly allowed. The sentences imposed on the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code are hereby altered. The petitioner is hereby sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. In case of default in payment of fine the accused-petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is hereby given 60 days of time to deposit the fine in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur, failing which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take steps to compel his appearance and commit him to jail for default in payment of fine. As and when the amount of fine is deposited, the same shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased Pyare Lal. Petition partly allowed.