Judgment Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.-This revision petition is directed against the appellate order dated 16.01.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu whereby the appellate Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 35/1993 and upheld the Judgment dated 30.08.1993 passed by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Chirawa, in Criminal Case No. 261/1986 whereby the accused petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 279, 304-A, IPC. For offence under Section 279, IPC, the accused petitioner was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-and for offence under Section 304-A he was sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment with a fine, of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, he will further suffer simple imprisonment of 15 days. The learned appellate Court however, modified the Judgment by reducing the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner by the trial Court. The appellate Court however directed that for offence under Section 304-A, IPC the accused petitioner shall suffer three months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused petitioner will further suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. 2. The facts of the case are that a Jeep No. GJC 5861 which was being driven by the accused petitioner on 30.06.1986 at about 2.00 PM on that day on the road in between Chirawa to Mandela, it met with an accident with a Scooter which was being driven by one Om Prakash as a result of the said accident, the Scooter driver Om Prakash suffered injuries on the spot and ultimately succumbed to the injuries and died in Hospital. The accused was tried for offence under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC for rash and negligent driving and also for causing death to Om Prakash, the Scooter driver as aforementioned. 3. Mr. Vipul Jaiman, the learned Counsel for the petitioner urged before this Court that the Courts below have erred in convicting the accused petitioner as he was not identified as a person who was driving the jeep at the relevant time nor any eye witnesses have stated that he was the person who was driving the said jeep by which the accident took place at the middle of the road and, therefore, it is a case of contributory negligence and, therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner deserves to be set-aside. 4. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes these submissions and contends that there are concurrent findings of two Courts below against the accused petitioner after appreciation of evidence and the learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out as to how these findings of facts are required to be interfered with by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. He submits that there is no doubt about the said accused that he was driving the said jeep and in pursuance of the notice under Section 88 of the Old Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 and New Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the owner of the jeep Mr. Vidhyadhar has stated in (Exhibit P-2) that the said jeep on the date of accident was driven by the accused petitioner. He had agreed to sell the said jeep to his brother-in-law Nandlal but transfer of the R.C. of the said jeep has not been effected. Actually, the R.C. filed by the police shows that one Shabbir was the registered owner of the said jeep. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the accident took place on account of the said jeep which was driven by the driver on wrong side which collided with the Scooter driven by Om Prakash who fell down, sustained injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. He submits that number of cases are increasing on account of rash and negligent driving and no sympathy deserves to be shown on the point of sentence. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court is satisfied that there is no need to upset the findings arrived at in the impugned Judgment s against the accused petitioner and the two Courts below have rightly arrived at a conclusion of guilt and in convicting and sentencing the accused petitioner for the aforementioned offences committed by him. Coming to the period of sentence awarded by the trial Court, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a lenient view should be taken as the petitioner is a Government Servant and working as a Conductor in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, the incident relates to the year 1986 and about 20 years have already elapsed and the petitioner has already suffered confinement of about 13 days after the appellate order was passed and his sentence was suspended on 27.01.1995. 6. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. Therefore, the fine imposed by the appellate Court is maintained. However, the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, is extended in favour of the accused petitioner. The accused petitioner shall be released on probation, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-together with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court to keep peace and maintain good behaviour for a period of one year. Further the accused petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/-in the trial Court by way of compensation to be paid to the wife of the deceased or to his other family members by summoning them in the trial Court as the deceased was 27 years of age at the time of accident. The amount of compensation shall be deposited by the accused petitioner in the trial Court within a period of two months from today, failing which, he will undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 7. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of