Judgment Ram Chand Gupta, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against order dated 27.8.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Jalandhar, vide which appeal filed by the present revision petitioner against judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, dated 1.8.2007 convicting the revision petitioner for offence under Section 304-A IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and further convicting for offence under Section 279 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, was dismissed except to the extent that sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years was reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. 3. So far as judgment of conviction rendered by learned trial Court is concerned, the same was not challenged by learned counsel for the revision- petitioner before the appellate Court. Prayer was only made to reduce the quantum of sentence and accordingly, while maintaining judgment of conviction, sentence was reduced from two years to one year. The present revision petition has also been filed on the quantum of sentence only. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that revision petitioner is not a previous convict and that he has been facing trial for the last about ten years and hence, it is contended that he be given benefit of probation under the probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 5. 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, 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 No. 12 and 13 of the judgment read as under :- "12. Relevant paragraphs No. 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.L.J. 776 this Court did not allow a sentence of fine, imposed on a driver who was convicted under S.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." 6. 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." 6. This judgment was subsequently followed by the Honble Apex Court in B. Nagabhushanam v. State of Karnataka, 2008(3) RCR(Crl.)50 and the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act was denied to the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. 7. In the present case, revision-petitioner drove truck No. PAT-4287 in a very rash and negligent manner and hit against a scooter being driven by Narinder Singh, deceased, by taking the truck on the wrong side of the road, due to which he sustained injuries resulting into his death. It was head on collision and hence, in view of the legal proposition settled by Honble Apex Court in the aforementioned cases 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 should be granted to the revision petitioner. 8. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, learned appellate Court has already reduced the sentence from two years to one year. Hence, no further reduction in the quantum of sentence is called for. 9. Hence, for the reasons recorded above, the present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Petition dismissed.