Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1 Kulwant Sinjgh was named as accused in case FIR No. 76 dated 10.3.1999 registered at Police Station Dina Nagar, under Section 304-A and 427 IPC. The Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, found the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2 Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, petitioner preferred an appeal. The lower Appellate Court upheld the conviction and maintained the sentence. 3 In the present case, FIR was registered on the statement made by Buti Ram, who stated that he was working as Patwari and was posted at Dodwan. On 10.3.1999, he had gone for official work to Sadar Kanungo, Gurdaspur, where he met Daulat Ram. Daulat Ram was colleague of Buti Ram. After finishing their work, they proceeded towards their village together. On the way, Manwinder Singh met them. He also accompanied them for going to village. Complainant Buti Ram and Manwinder Singh were travelling on scooter No. PB-18-8974, whereas Daulat Ram was driving his own scooter No. PB-35-6410. Daulat Ram was going ahead of complainant on the left side. At about 5.30 P.M., when they reached near Harijan Colony, a bus of Punjab Roadways came. The bus was coming at a high speed and hit the scooter of Daulat Ram, Patwari, from the wrong side. It was later learnt that driver of the bus was Kulwant Singh. In the accident, passengers of the bus also received injuries. Daulat Ram was taken to the Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, in Maruti Van No. PB-06-A-1939. Daulat Ram died at Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. The accident was witnessed by Buti Ram and Manwinder Singh. It was stated that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. 4 Prosecution examined 12 witnesses i.e. PW.l Rajesh Kumar, Photographer, PW.2 Dr. H.S, Bhatia, Medical Officer, PW.3 Krishan Gopal, Constable, PW.4 Jagdish Singh, Head Constable, PW.5 Bal Kishore Agnihotri, Senior Clerk, from the office of District Transport Officer, Gurdaspur, PW.6 Buti Ram, Patwari, PW.7 Manwinder Singh, PW.8 Surinderpal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, PW.9 Harinder Kumar, Clerk, PW.10 Gopal Dass, PW.11 Bansi Lal and PW.l2 Charan Dass, Reader to Naib Tehsildar. 5 Mr. H.S, Bhatia, Medical Officer, PW.3 Krishan Gopal, Constable, PW.4 Jagdish Singh, Head Constable, PW.5 Bal Kishore Agnihotri, Senior Clerk, from the office of District Transport Officer, Gurdaspur, PW.6 Buti Ram, Patwari, PW.7 Manwinder Singh, PW.8 Surinderpal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, PW.9 Harinder Kumar, Clerk, PW.10 Gopal Dass, PW.11 Bansi Lal and PW.l2 Charan Dass, Reader to Naib Tehsildar. 5 Mr. Amrik Singh Kalra, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has stated that in the present case, petitioner was posted as Driver on the bus of Punjab Roadways. He further contended that the two Courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of PW.6 Buti Ram and PW.7 Manwinder Singh. Counsel has further contended that he is conscious that this Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot re-appreciate and do reappraisal of the evidence. Counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has undergone about one month and five days of his actual sentence. It is further submitted that accident, in the present case, had taken place in the year 1999. Though a period of 11 years are going to elapse, yet the petitioner is in the corridors of the Courts and has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial. It is contended that sending the petitioner behind the bars will not serve any useful purpose, however, some compensation can be awarded to the family of the deceased. Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner has not committed any other offence, before or after the present occurrence. 6 I have considered the arguments raised before this Court. It cannot be ignored that the petitioner is entitled to speedy trial of the case. He has already undergone one month and five days of actual sentence. There is merit in the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. Furthermore, prayer made by counsel that petitioner is ready and willing to compensate the family of deceased, is to be considered in the context that sending the petitioner behind the bars will not serve any useful purpose, however, family of the deceased can be compensated so that it may provide some succour. 7 Accordingly, sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to already undergone, however, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs. 35,000/-. The petitioner shall deposit the enhanced amount of fine in the trial Court, within three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7 Accordingly, sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to already undergone, however, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs. 35,000/-. The petitioner shall deposit the enhanced amount of fine in the trial Court, within three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The amount, so deposited, shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased. In case the amount of fine is not deposited, no benefit in reduction of sentence shall accrue to the petitioner. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of