Judgment Ram Chand Gupta, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 4.12.2002 rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which it dismissed the appeal against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8,7.2002 rendered by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, vide which it convicted the present revision- petitioner for offence under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days for offence under Section 279 IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days for offence under Section 304-A IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 10.4.1999, Jagdish Gupta, complainant alongwith his wife Smt. Bimla Gupta,, his son Am it Kumar, his daughter Anu Gupta, Joginder Goyal and his wife had gone to Vaishno Devi in a bus bearing registration No. DL-1PA-3588. There were total 45 passengers in the bus. On 12.4.1999 at about 7.00 p.m. they left Katra and on return journey on 13.4.1999 at about 4.30 a.m. when they reached near Octroi post on Sirhind Road, Patiala, a tractor was coming from opposite direction. The driver of the bus was driving it at a very fast speed, i.e. 120 km per hour. Complainant and other passengers requested the driver of bus to drive the same at a slow speed, however, driver did not pay heed to their request. He lost control over the bus and hit against a tree due to which the passengers travelling in the bus sustained injuries. Anu Gupta, daughter of the complainant and one Gaurav Bansal sustained injuries and they succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The other injured and the dead bodies of Anu Gupta and Gaurav Bansal were taken to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, in a jeep. 3. First Information Report was registered on the statement of the complainant - Jagdish Gupta and investigation was taken in hand. Post-mortem examination on the dead bodies was got conducted. Photographs of the place of occurrence were also taken. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was also prepared by the Investigating Officer. 3. First Information Report was registered on the statement of the complainant - Jagdish Gupta and investigation was taken in hand. Post-mortem examination on the dead bodies was got conducted. Photographs of the place of occurrence were also taken. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was also prepared by the Investigating Officer. 4. After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) was filed against the present revision-petitioner for his trial for offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC. He was charged accordingly by learned trial Court to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to substantiate the allegation against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses. PW1 is Jagdish Gupta, complainant; PW2 is Jagminder Singh, eye-witness; PW3 is Jaswant Singh, Constable; PW4 is Dr. Harish Tuli; PW5 is Piara Singh; PW6 is Karam Chand, SI, Investigating Officer of this case and PW7 is Nachhatar Singh. 6. Statement of accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the incriminating evidence coming against him and pleaded innocence. Accused also examined two witnesses, i.e., DW1 Rameshwar and DW2 Ranbir Singh in his defence. 7. Learned trial Court convicted the present revision-petitioner for offences under Sections 279/304-A IPC and sentenced him for the said offences, as aforementioned^. Accused preferred appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, who dismissed the same and hence, the present revision petition. 8. I have heard Shri M.S. Dhillon, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and Shri Jaspreet Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the whole record carefully. 9. It is settled principle of law that in its revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence until and unless, it comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse, illegal and erroneous on account of misreading of evidence. The Courts below while relying upon the cogent and convincing evidence of prosecution witnesses, were right in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. 10. The Courts below while relying upon the cogent and convincing evidence of prosecution witnesses, were right in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. 10. Both the courts below have found the deposition of complainant Jagdish Gupta duly corroborated by PW2 Jagminder Singh, convincing and reliable and the same was also corroborated by the other circumstantial evidence. Driver of the bus had driven the same in such a rash manner that he could not control the same and hit against the tree. He left Katra at 7.00 p.m. on 12.4.1999 and did not take rest on the way till 4.30 a.m. on 13.4.1999 when accident took place. Both the witnesses were travelling in the bus being driven by the accused. They categorically deposed that the accused was the same person who was driving the bus at the time of accident. The name of the accused was also found mentioned in the FIR lodged j ust after the accident. Learned Courts below rightly rejected the defence version that accused was not driving the bus. The witnesses examined by the accused are procured one. They are known to the accused. They did not give any such version to some higher authority immediately after the accident. Moreover there is no documentary evidence that they were traveling in the bus at the time of the accident. Hence, no fault can be found with the judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court as well as by learned appellate Court. 11. So far as order of sentence is concerned, it was argued by learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that he has already undergone about 2 months of imprisonment and that he has been facing agony of trial since 13.4.1999, i.e., for the last about 10 years and hence, it is argued that he should be given benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 12. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab that the present revision-petitioner has taken away the lives of two persons by driving his bus in a rash and negligent manner and hence, taking into consideration the nature of the offence, no interference in the order of sentence passed by learned Courts below is called for. 13. 13. Law on the point as to whether the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act should be granted to the accused convicted for offence under Section 304-A IPC, has been settled by Honble Apex Court in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000(2) RCR(Crl.) 816 (SC) by observing that the courts should not as a normal rule, invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act when the accused is convicted of the offence under Section 304-A IPC in causing death of human beings by rash or negligent driving. Relevant paragraphs Nos. 12 and 13 of the judgment read as under : "12. In State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju, (1987) 1 SCC 538 .AIR 1987 SC 861 : 1987 Crl.LJ. 776, this Court did not allow a sentence of fine, imposed on a driver who was convicted under Section 304-A IPC to remain in force although the High Court too had confirmed the said sentence when an accused was convicted of the offence of driving a bus callously and causing death of a human being. In that case this Court enhanced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months besides imposed a fine. 13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, Criminal Courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under S. 304-A I.P.C. as attracting the benevolent provisions of S.4 of the PO Act. While considering the quantum of sentence, to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident, or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence, and lastly that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the Court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence of causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of vehicle he cannot escape from jail sentence. This is the role which the Courts can play, particularly at the level of trial Courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles." 14. This judgment was subsequently followed by the Honble Apex Court in B. Nagabhushanam v. State of Karnataka, 2008(3) RCR(CrL) SO : 2008(3) RAJ 554, and the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act was denied to the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. 15. In the present case the accused had driven the bus in a very rash and negligent manner despite the fact that he was requested by the passengers travelling in the bus to drive the same at a slow speed and hence he lost the control and hit the bus against a tree taking lives of two innocent persons. 16. Hence taking into consideration the legal proposition settled by the Honble Apex Court in Dalbir Singhs case (supra) and followed in B. Nagabhushanas case (supra) and taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that it is not a fit case in which benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act should be granted to the accused. 17. Learned Courts below have already taken a lenient view in the matter of sentence and the revision-petitioner has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 9 months only for offence under Section 304-A IPC. Hence, no further reduction in the sentence is called for merely on the ground that revision-petitioner is facing trial for the last about ten years. 18. The judgments rendered by Courts below do not suffer from any illegality and infirmity and the same are liable to be upheld. Hence the present revision-petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court is upheld. 19. Bail bonds of the revision-petitioner stand cancelled. The concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment with due promptitude keeping in view the applicability of provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C.