JUDGMENT 1. - The accused petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 279, 337 and 304-A of the IPC by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Jaipur Distt. After an unsuccessful appeal, the accused preferred instant revision. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not challenge the conviction but only canvassed that the accused petitioner is entitled to benefit of probation. Reliance was placed on Prabhu Dayal v. State of Raj. (RLW 1992 (2) Page 303) , Mohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan ( 1994 (1) WLN 561 ) , Bhikha Ram v. State (Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1992 Page 268) and Sohan Lal v. State (Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1990 Page 404) . 2. Mr. M.L. Goyal, learned PR for the State opposed the submissions and supported the impugned judgments. 3. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 4. A look at the site plan (Ex.R 2) demonstrates that Road where the accident took place was 22 feet wide. The prosecution has established that the accused drove the truck so rashly that it collided with the back side of the tractor. Learned appellate court took a serious note of the subsequent conduct of the accused. Neither the accused took the injured to the Hospital nor he lodged the report with the Police Station. In Abdul Hamid v. State (Delhi), ( 1991 (1) Crimes 83 ) it was held that in a fatal accident the accused is not entitled to the benefit of probation where his behaviour was callous and indifferent after the accident. 5. Authorities cited by the learned counsel for the accused petitioner are distinguishable. In those cases the behaviour of the accused was not callous or indifferent. I am of the considered view that the accused petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of probation. 6. Resultantly, the revision stands dismissed. However I may observe that note of conviction in the driving licence of the accused petitioner is unwarranted. Record be sent back. *******