S. L. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT/state has filed this criminal appeal under Section 377 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bedhan, upon the accused/respondent as per the judgment and order dated 28-4-92 passed in Criminal Case No. 294/92 aggrieved by its inadequacy. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief, was that at around 6. 30 p. m. on 3-3-92, respondent Bhagirath was driving dumper No. ADJ-9122 belonging to M/s. Asian Foundation Construction Company, Ltd. , Sidhi, rashly and negligently. Another truck No. CPA-3691 had met with an accident. One Parwati Bai wife of Jatai who was a labourer on truck No. CPA-3691, and was standing near it was hit by respondent's truck. ( 3 ) INJURED Parwati Bai was admitted in C. H. C. Bedhan. The fact of her admission in the hospital was reported to S. O. , P. S. Bedhan, by Assistant Surgeon, C. H. C. Bedhan. She was referred to Vindyachal Super Thermal Power Project Hospital, Vidyanagar, Sidhi where she was admitted on 3-3-92 at 9. 30 p. m. She succumbed to the injuries on 4-3-92 at 3. 45 a. m. According to the death report the cause of death was cardio respiratory arrest caused by shock. Post Mortem Examination of deceased Smt. Parwati Bai was performed by Dr. B. L. Seth, Assistant Surgeon, C. H. C. Bedhan, who opined that Parwati Bai died due to haemorrhage suffered because of injury on her right side thigh and right foot and leg. During investigation, spot map was prepared. The offending dumper was seized and after usual investigation challan was filed against the respondent in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bedhan. ( 4 ) A charge for an offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code was framed against the respondent who pleaded guilty to the charge where upon learned trial Magistrate conviced the respondent for the aforesaid offence and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default the respondent was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The State has challenged this sentence in this appeal on the ground of its inadequacy. ( 5 ) I have heard Shri Sanjeev Shukla, Panel Lawyer for the State and Shri Amit Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the judgment and order of the learned trial Magistrate. The State has challenged this sentence in this appeal on the ground of its inadequacy. ( 5 ) I have heard Shri Sanjeev Shukla, Panel Lawyer for the State and Shri Amit Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the judgment and order of the learned trial Magistrate. ( 6 ) SHRI Sanjeev Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer, forcefully contended that the sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate is highly inadequace. He submits that when a poor innoecent woman has lost her life due to negligence and carelessness of the accused, he is not entitled to any leniency. Offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code is a traffic violation that cannot be bartered by the Courts by awarding a nominal fine. While driving on busy highways with heavy vehicles the drivers should be careful, extra cautious and circumspect. The punishment in respect of such an offence should deter other driver from being negligent and careless while driving a heavy vehicle, therefore, the learned Panel Lawer submitted that this Court should impose a sentence of imprisonment on the accused commensurate with the degree of callousness inherent in the conduct of he accused. ( 7 ) AS against this, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the Legislature in its wisdom has left it to the discretion of the Court to punish a person for an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, either with imprisonment or with fine or both. The Legislature did not consider it fit to make term of imprisonment mandatory for this offence. On the other hand, it did visualize the posssibility of an offence falling under this provision where imposition of mere fine would be sufficient. He also submits that awarding sentence is a matter of discretion and yardstick valid for all occasions cannot be prescribed. He submits that the imposition of sentence is the discretion of the trial Court and this Court should not ordinarily interfere with judicial discretion exercised by the trial Court. He, therefore, submits that no interference in the quantum of sentence is called for. He submits that the imposition of sentence is the discretion of the trial Court and this Court should not ordinarily interfere with judicial discretion exercised by the trial Court. He, therefore, submits that no interference in the quantum of sentence is called for. ( 8 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and after carefully perusing the record of the lower Court, I find that the unfortunate accident was the direct result of reckless and negligent driving by the respondent in utter disregard of the safety of persons on the road, therefore, the sentence of mere fine is grossly inadequate. It is true that the respondent admitted his guilt but the practice of imposing disproportionately light sentences merely because the conviction was on a plea of guilt, is injudicious and is, therefore, to be depricated. I am aware that prejudice in case of an offence under Section 304-A of IPC is bound more or less to reflect on the question of culpability of the accused and give rise to false issues which tend to cloud judicial vision but the task of keeping out the prejudice has got to be performed. To decide the question as to whether the sentence passed on accused should be enhanced, one has to consider whether the rash and negligent act of the accused which occasioned the death showed callousness on the part of the respondent as regards the risk which he was exposing. In this case, an innocent woman who was standing by the side of the road died due to the callousness on the part of the respondent. Looking to the degree of callousness which was present in the conduct of the accused, the respondent does not deserve leniency. In Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 84 : (1980 Cri LJ 11) where the rash and negligent driving of a truck driver resulted in a fatal accident, the Supreme Court declined to reduce the sentence of two years. ( 9 ) IT is true that since the commission of offence a considerable period has elapsed but it is not sufficient ground to take a lenient view. ( 9 ) IT is true that since the commission of offence a considerable period has elapsed but it is not sufficient ground to take a lenient view. Normally, in such cases the maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment should be awarded but looking to the lapse of considerable period of time since the commission of offence and looking to the fact that the accused also suffered some injuries when his dumper hit not only the deceased but also the truck standing by the side of the road, a sentence of R. I. for a period of one year will be adequate. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, this appeal is allowed. Apart from the sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- which has already been imposed by the trial Magistrate vide the impugned judgment, a sentence of R. I. for one year is imposed. In default of fine the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. The judgment and order of the trial Magistrate with regard to the sentence awarded to the respondent stands modified to the extent indicated above. ( 11 ) THE respondent shall surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sidhi, on or before 24-2-2003 to undergo the sentence of imprisonment as has been imposed upon him by this judgment. On the aforesaid date, the C. J. M. shall send the respondent to Jail to undergo the sentene of imprisonment as directed above and his bail bonds and surety bonds shall be discharged. In case the respondent does not appear before C. J. M. Sidhi, as directed above, the C. J. M. shall take necessary steps to procure his presence. A copy of this order be sent to C. J. M. Sidhi, along with the record forthwith. Appeal allowed. .