ORDER R.S. Garg, J. 1. The applicant was tried by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baloda Bazar, for offences punishable under Sections 279/338, IPC for having caused injuries to one Sushil Kumar Jangade, on 7-4-93 at about 7.00 p.m. when the said person was going to attend his work. 2. The allegations against the present applicant were that he was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and hit the victim. The victim in the said accident suffered a fracture of clavicle bone. After completing investigation, challan was filed against the present applicant on which Criminal Case No. 300/93 was registered. The applicant denied the charges, therefore, he was put to trial. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in bringing home the guilt. It accordingly convicted the appellant under Sections 279 and 338, IPC and also awarded sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- under each count and to undergo R.I. for one month in default of deposit of fine under each count, under the judgment dated 12-7-2000, 3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 202/2000, which was heard and decided by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, who under his judgment dated 7-11-2000 dismissed the appeal, maintained the conviction and awarded sentence. 4. Shri P.C. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the learned Court below erred in awarding separate sentences for commission of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338, IPC. According to him, as the ingredients constituting an offence punishable under Section 279, IPC are part of the ingredients conslituting an offence under Section 338, IPC, therefore, at the best the applicant could be convicted under Sections 279 and 338, IPC, but separate sentences could not be awarded against him. 5. Learned counsel for the State was unable to contend contrary to the said legal position. 6. I have heard the parties. 7. 5. Learned counsel for the State was unable to contend contrary to the said legal position. 6. I have heard the parties. 7. Section 279, IPC provides : "Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend lo one thousand rupees, or with both." Section 338, IPC, provides as under : "Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both." 8. A juxta-pose reading of Sections 279 and 338, IPC would clearly provide that if no injury is caused to anybody, but the vehicle is being driven rashly and negligently which may endanger human life or the said riving is likely to cause hurt or injury to any person, then such person can be convicted and punished under Section 279, IPC. The rash act provided under Section 279, IPC would also provide a foundation for conviction of a person under Sections 337 and 338, IPC also. A perusal of Section 338, IPC would show that if some person does an act so rashly or negligently and the same endangers to human life, then such a person can be convicted and punished. Section 279, IPC relates to driving a vehicle rashly and negligently. Sections 337 and 338, IPC refer to rash and negligent act. In fact, the constituents of thcof fence punishable under Sections 279,337 and 338, IPC are common. It is a rash and negligent act which makes the person answerable to charge under all these sections. Rash and negligent driving in fact is a rash and negligent act which endangers human life and personal safety of others. In fact, the constituents of thcof fence punishable under Sections 279,337 and 338, IPC are common. It is a rash and negligent act which makes the person answerable to charge under all these sections. Rash and negligent driving in fact is a rash and negligent act which endangers human life and personal safety of others. Under Section 337, IPC a person can be convicted if, because of the rash and negligent act somebody suffers simply injuries and the doer of the rash and negligent act can be held liable under Section 338, IPC, if the said act leads to grievous injury or hurt. 9. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant can be convicted under Section 279 read with Section 338, IPC, appears to be justifiable. Separate sentences obviously could not be passed because the act of rash and negligent driving would ultimately merge under the Act covered under Section 338, IPC. The revision deserves to and is partly allowed. Though, the conviction of appellant is maintained for offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338, IPC, but the sentence awarded to him under Section 279, [PC which in fact is a smaller offence of Section 338, IPC, is set aside. Fine amount, if deposited by the appellant, imposed upon him in relation to offence punishable under Section 279, IPC, be refunded back to him. 10. To the extent indicated above, the petition is allowed. Petition allowed.