ORDER A.N. Venugopala Gowda J.—With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. Petitioner was the driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-17/F-588. While he was driving the said bus, on 4.9.1988 at 9.30 am. in front of petty shop of Chandrappa at Alagavadi Village, dashed against one Kunchalappa/CW-6, father of CW-1, who sustained grievous injuries. The criminal prosecution under Ss.279 and 338 IPC was initiated against the petitioner. He was found guilty of the said offences and was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each of the offences, in default, to undergo S.I. for one month. An appeal preferred there-against by the petitioner was dismissed. This revision petition has been filed to set aside the said judgments. 2. Sri B. Pramod, learned Advocate contended that there being no rashness or negligence on the part of the petitioner and the ingredients of Ss.279 and 338 IPC having not been made out, the Courts below have erred in holding the petitioner - accused guilty for the offences. He submitted that the record of the case has not been correctly appreciated and the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse. Alternatively, it was submitted that, the petitioner may be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act (for short, the P.O. Act) since the payment of fine would affect the service career of the petitioner. Reliance was placed on an order dated 23.05.2012 passed by this Court in Crl.R.P.No. 1067/2009. 3. Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned High Court Government Pleader, on the other hand, supported the view taken by the Courts below and sought dismissal of the petition. 4. In view of the rival contentions and the record of the case, point for consideration is, whether the finding of guilt recorded by the Courts below, against the petitioner is perverse and illegal? 5. Prosecution, in order to prove the allegations made against the petitioner, has examined P.Ws. 1 to 10, through whom Exs.P1 to P8 have been marked. Petitioner was examined under S.313 Cr. P.C. and his statement has been recorded. He has pleaded innocence and has not chosen to lead any defence evidence. 6. 5. Prosecution, in order to prove the allegations made against the petitioner, has examined P.Ws. 1 to 10, through whom Exs.P1 to P8 have been marked. Petitioner was examined under S.313 Cr. P.C. and his statement has been recorded. He has pleaded innocence and has not chosen to lead any defence evidence. 6. The allegation against the petitioner was that, on 04.09.2008, at about 9.30 a.m., when CW-1 was sitting in front of petty shop of one Chandrappa at Alagavadi Village, his father by name Kunchalappa - CW-6 was proceeding on the road to meet CW-1, the driver of the bus in question i.e., the petitioner, drove it in rash and negligent manner, dashed against Kunchalappa - CW-6, endangering human life. CW-6 sustained grievous injuries over his left thigh, left chest, left hand, left leg, left ear and mouth and thereby, petitioner committed offences punishable under Ss.279 and 338 IPC. 7. CW-1/PW-1 is the complainant and son of CW-6/PW-7 who sustained grievous injuries in the motor vehicle accident which occurred at 9.30 a.m. on 04.09.2008 at Alagavadi Village. PW-1 has deposed that he was sitting in front of petty shop of Chandrappa and when his father was arriving on the road to meet him, the driver of KSRTC bus bearing No. KA-17/F-588, drove it in rash and negligent manner and as a result, dashed against his father, who sustained grievous injuries all over his body. PW-1 has identified the accused - petitioner as the driver of the bus at the relevant point of time. 8. CW-6/PW-7 who is the victim has deposed that, due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the accused - petitioner, accident occurred and he sustained injuries all over his body. 9. PW-8 is the medical practitioner who treated CW-6/PW-7. The wound certificate issued by him is at Ex.P6, which shows sustaining of grievous injuries by PW-7. 10. Evidence of PW-2 shows that due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, CW-6/PW-7 had a fall and sustained injuries over his body. His evidence shows that he is having a cycle shop just near Kanivemaramma temple, situated at Alagavadi Village. He has deposed that the bus arrived from Lakkihalli Village, turned towards left side near the bus-stand and as a result, dashed against CW-6. He has identified the accused - petitioner as the driver of the bus when the accident occurred. His evidence shows that he is having a cycle shop just near Kanivemaramma temple, situated at Alagavadi Village. He has deposed that the bus arrived from Lakkihalli Village, turned towards left side near the bus-stand and as a result, dashed against CW-6. He has identified the accused - petitioner as the driver of the bus when the accident occurred. 11. Evidence of PW-3 shows that the police arrived at the spot, prepared spot mahazar - Ex.P2 and he attested Ex.P2. 12. Evidence of CW-8/PW-5 shows that, on 04.09.2008, he was the Conductor of the bus bearing registration No. KA-17/F-588 and the bus left Sirigere at about 8.30 a.m. and while arriving to Algavadi Village just near Kanivemaramma temple, accident occurred and CW-6 sustained injuries. He has deposed that the petitioner was the driver of the bus. 13. Ex.P8 is the IMV report which shows that the vehicle did not had any mechanical defect at the time of accident. 14. From the evidence brought record, prosecution has established that the petitioner was the driver of the bus bearing registration No. KA-13/F-588 on 04.09.2008 at the relevant point of time when the accident in question occurred on account of rash and negligent driving and CW-6/PW-7 i.e., Kunchalappa sustained grievous injuries. 15. The occurrence of the accident and sustaining of grievous injuries by CW-6/PW-7 is not in dispute. S.106 of Evidence Act mandates that person like driver of the offending vehicle, who has special knowledge of the occurrence of the accident should explain as to how the accident occurred when an opportunity was made available to him under S.313 of Cr.P.C. In the instant case, petitioner has not offered any explanation. 16. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution makes out the ingredients Ss.279 and 338 IPC to hold the petitioner guilty of the said offences. The finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner by the Courts below is neither perverse nor illegal. Hence, the Courts below are justified in convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Ss.279 and 338 IPC. 17. In Crl. R.P. No. 1067/2009, the accused-petitioner was found guilty of offences Ss.279 and 337 IPC and was sentenced pay fine, in default, to undergo S.I. for 10 days. An observation was made to the effect that the sentence and fine imposed shall not come in the way of the career of the petitioner. 18. In Commandent 20 BK. 17. In Crl. R.P. No. 1067/2009, the accused-petitioner was found guilty of offences Ss.279 and 337 IPC and was sentenced pay fine, in default, to undergo S.I. for 10 days. An observation was made to the effect that the sentence and fine imposed shall not come in the way of the career of the petitioner. 18. In Commandent 20 BK. ITB Police Vs. Sanjay Binjola, AIR 2001 SC 2058 , it has been observed that, benefit of P.O. Act should not normally be afforded in respect of offences involving rash or negligent driving. It has been held that the observations made by the Appellate Court that "the conviction and sentence awarded shall not affect service career of the accused", is one without jurisdiction. 19. In the circumstances, I am unable to find merit in the contention of learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner be extended the benefit of provisions of P.O. Act or an observation to be made that the sentence of fine imposed shall not come in the way of service career of the petitioner. In view of the ratio of law in the decision of the Apex Court, noticed supra, I am respectfully, unable to follow the observation made in the order passed in Crl. R.P. No. 1067/2009. Having examined the case, the sentence imposed on the petitioner for the offences under Ss.279 and 338 IPC by the learned Magistrate and affirmed by the learned appellate Judge is not harsh. I do not find any justification to modify the sentence. In the result, petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Bail bond and surety bond are cancelled. Consequently, I.A.1/12 seeking suspension of sentence and to grant bail, does not survive for consideration.