J. C. MISHRA, J. This revision has been filed against the order dated 11-10-83 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur dismissing the appeal preferred against the order dated 28-4-83 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur convict ing the revisionist under Sections 304-A and 279, I. P. C. and sentencing him to un dergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and three months respectively. 2. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the prosecution could not adduce satisfactory evidence to prove that the revisionist was driving the jeep which was involved in the accident. The learned counsel further contended that the revisionist was not named in the first information report. 3. To prove the complicity of the revisionist the prosecution examined Mahavir and R. N. Singh. 4. A report of the incident was lodged by Roop Singh. He stated that he had not seen the driver of the vehicle and, there fore, he could not name him in the report. 5. Mahavir supported the prosecu tion case regarding involvement of the ac cused. The learned counsel contended that Mahavir Singh was not cited as a wit ness in the F. I. R. The learned counsel referred to the contradiction between the evidence of Mahavir Singh and the in formant as to whether he had disclosed the name of the revisionist before lodging of the report or afterwards. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the contradiction and assigning valid reasons held that the alleged contradiction is inconsequential. 6. Even if evidence of Mahavir Singh is excluded. we have evidence of R. N. Singh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has accepted the evidence of R. N. Singh, who was cited as a witness in the F. I. R. No infirmity could be pointed out in the evidence of R. N. Singh. Since the find ing is based on appreciation of evidence it would not be proper to interfere with the order in the revisional jurisdiction. 7. The incident had taken place in the year 1980. The revision was filed in the year 1982 but it could not be decided till now. On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances it would not be proper to send the accused to jail after such a long time. In my opinion, the sentence of fine would meet the ends of justice. 8. The revision is partly allowed. The revision was filed in the year 1982 but it could not be decided till now. On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances it would not be proper to send the accused to jail after such a long time. In my opinion, the sentence of fine would meet the ends of justice. 8. The revision is partly allowed. The conviction recorded by the learned Addi tional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur is main tained. The sentence of imprisonment is altered to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone and to fine of Rs. 1000/-under Section 279, I. P. C. and Rs. 2000/-under Section 3 ()4-A, I. P. C. In default of payment of fine the revisionist shall under go imprisonment for one month under Section 279, I. P. C. and six months under Section 304-A, I. P. C. Revision partly allowed.