JUDGMENT 1. - In the present revision petition, the accused petitioner was convicted for an offence committed by him on 20.12.1988. The accused was convicted under Section 279 and 304A IPC and sentenced to six months with a fine of Rs. 2500/- each. He was also convicted under Section 69/118A of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to seven days S.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/-. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the factum of conviction. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has undergone sentence of about three months and instead of requiring the accused petitioner to serve out the complete sentence, it would be appropriate that he may be asked to pay compensation to the family of the deceased persons. He proposes that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- may be ordered to be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased Rawat Ram and Ibrahim each. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor states that the accused has committed the offence by rash and instead of awarding substantive sentence, the petitioner may be saddled with financial burden. 4. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that the accused petitioner was sentenced in the year 1998, the incident is of the year 1988 and the revision is being heard in the year 2000, this Court feels persuaded that instead of maintaining the sentences of imprisonment the accused petitioner be saddled with financial liability and he should be ordered to pay compensation to the victims. Therefore, it is ordered that the accused petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with the trial court within a period of three months from today to be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Rawat Ram and Ibrahim in this case in equal proportionate. The amount shall be paid by the learned trial court to the victim. In case the amount is not deposited, the accused petitioner shall undergo the sentences recorded against him by the learned trial court. If the amount is paid then the sentence of imprisonment shall stand converted into sentence of fine and accused petitioner will be released forth-with. 5. In the result, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, the revision is partly allowed as indicated above.Revision partly allowed. *******