JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner-Chandra Prakash had been convicted for offence u/s. 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. He has further been convicted for offence u/s. 279 & 337 IPC and sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment on each count by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Khanpuar. On an appeal, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, confirmed the said conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 27.8.1997. Both the sentences have been made concurrent. The petitioner has come up in this revision petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner but urges that the petitioner may be given the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of this contention, I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited before me the case of Adam Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 1985 RCC 276 , Nasaru Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 RCC 336 and also the case of Ramavtar & Ors v. State of Rajasthan, 1986 RCC 413. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court did not apply its mind so far as the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. are concerned. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, has also not viewed the matter in this aspect. 3. After going through the file of the trial Court, it comes out that of-course, the learned trial Court was of the opinion that though, the accused-petitioner is a Government employee but due to increasing of the accident cases, he was not inclined to grant this benefit to the petitioner. He has of-course, not given special reasons or refusing this benefit to the petitioner. The incident relates to 18.5.1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at bar that the accused- petitioner is still in Government employment and working as a Driver. He has of-course, not given special reasons or refusing this benefit to the petitioner. The incident relates to 18.5.1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at bar that the accused- petitioner is still in Government employment and working as a Driver. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nasaru v. State of Rajasthan (supra), while dealing with the case of Section 304-A IPC have held as under : "Under the new Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Court has to hear the accused person on the question of sentence and at that time, it has also to keep in mind the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. sentencing an accused person is a sensitive exercise of discretion and not a routine or mechanical prescription acting on bench. While passing an order of sentence or fine, the Court has to keep in mind the status and capacity of the accused person to pay. The object of imposing a fine and awarding compensation to the injured or the kith and kin of the deceased, is to compensate for the injury suffered in the accident and if the fine is imposed beyond the capacity to pay, of the accused, he is only to undergo sentence of imprisonment for a longer time in view of non-payment of fine and that does not help the injured or the kith and kin of the deceased." 4. Under these circumstances, it would be proper to deal with the petitioner u/s. 360 or under the Probation of Offenders Act. It was also contended that there is no previous conviction against the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor has not seriously opposed this contention. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner may be granted benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act and some compensation should also be allowed to the family members of the deceased. 5. I, therefore, partly allow this revision petition and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner set-aside the sentence awarded to the petitioner. Instead of sentencing him forthwith, he shall be released on his entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5. I, therefore, partly allow this revision petition and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner set-aside the sentence awarded to the petitioner. Instead of sentencing him forthwith, he shall be released on his entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 2,500/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear and receive sentence whenever, called upon to do so within a period of two years and in the meantime, to maintain peace and be of good behaviour. I further direct that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the legal representatives of the deceased- Mohit Jain and a sum of Rs. 500/- as costs of the proceedings. One month time is allowed to the petitioner to deposit the amount in the trial Court. 6. The revision petition stands disposed of.Revision petition partly allowed. *******