JUDGMENT 1. - Kishan Singh petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order dated 10.10.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 Udaipur in his Cr. Appeal No. 19/2001. By the impugned order the learned court below has upheld the order of conviction and sentence dated 31.3.2001 delivered by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udaipur. Both the courts below have convicted the present petitioner for an offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and awarded him three months simple imprisonment on each count. Hence this revision. 2. The submissions of the learned counsel are that the occurrence took place at 8.30 P.M. on 2.7.1998 at power house, Debari. The jeep No. RJ-27-C-4549 was alleged to being driven rashly and negligently by the present petitioner at the time of accident resulting which PW1 Rooplal and PW2 Lokesh were injured who were going on TVS Moped No. RPJ-6430. The FIR was lodged immediately thereafter and the injured persons were examined in which Lokesh received three simple injuries out of them upon X- Ray fracture of medial part of right clavicle was found, therefore, one injury was grievous blunt and others were simple blunt. Rooplal received a lacerated wound on the region of scalp which upon C.T. Scan was found dangerous to life. 3. The Station House Officer submitted challan under the above offence against the petitioner and after denial of charges prosecution examined eight witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. In statement given under Section 313 Cr.RC. accused denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him and pleaded false implication. Thereafter the learned trial court mainly relying on the testimony of PW1 Rooplal and PW2 Lokesh held the accused guilty of the above offences which was upheld by the appellate court below. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it the place of accident the vehicle was going uphill, therefore, there cannot be any rashness and negligent on the part of the driver. Both the courts below have dealt with this aspect of the matter logically. Even if there is some slope at the place of accidents, it was more incumbent upon the driver to have taken much care in driving the vehicle. Had there not been rashness and negligent on the part of the driver there could not have been accident of the jeep. Even if there is some slope at the place of accidents, it was more incumbent upon the driver to have taken much care in driving the vehicle. Had there not been rashness and negligent on the part of the driver there could not have been accident of the jeep. PW1 Rooplal and PW2 Lokesh were not sitting on the jeep .being driven by the petitioner, however, they themselves were riding on their own moped and in such a situation it was required from the driver of the jeep to have taken all care and precaution to save the pedestrians and other persons going on the road. Both the courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence ocular and documentary available on the file and have reached to a correct conclusion. 5. This court while sitting on revisional side once again cannot re-appreciate the evidence unless and until there is misreading of evidence or conclusion drawn were shocking the conscience. None of the above situation seems to have arisen in the matter at hand. Therefore, I do not find any illegality much less jurisdictional error in the impugned order so far as conviction of the petitioner is concerned and uphold the same. 6. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, though PW1 Rooplal and PW2 Lokesh have received some injuries on their persons, yet the doctors who conducted their medical examination and thereafter given them treatment have not been examined nor the radiologist was examined. In such a situation it cannot be said that PW1 Rooplal received an injury dangerous to life or that PW2 Lokesh received a grievous injury. This is the first offence of the present petitioner he must have been given benefit of Section 360 Cr.RC. and released on probation.The courts below relying on the Apex Court pronouncement have denied the benefit of probation to the petitioner. In the Apex Court pronouncement the offence was related to Section 304-A IPC as a death was caused in the accident. In the matter at hand, only blunt and simple injuries were caused. The present petitioner is 35 years old having family and children to look after. This being his first offence and he is in custody since 10.10.01, therefore, in such a situation it will meet the ends of justice if he is punished to the period already undergone. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is accepted accordingly. The present petitioner is 35 years old having family and children to look after. This being his first offence and he is in custody since 10.10.01, therefore, in such a situation it will meet the ends of justice if he is punished to the period already undergone. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is accepted accordingly. The petitioner shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other matter.Revision Petition allowed. *******