JUDGMENT 1. - The criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 3.10.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui in Criminal Appeal No. 20/2001 whereby the conviction and sentence of the present petitioner has been maintained. The present petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under: Under Section 279 I.P.C. two months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-. Under Section 337 I.P.C. two months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-. Under Section 304A I.P.C. one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default two months simple imprisonment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.12.1997 Vijendra Singh has lodged a report that he and his brother were going to Dausa on Motor Cycle on 25.12.1997 at 5.30 P.M. near Kalota Bus Stand, Tractor No. RJ-29 R 1360 came rashly and negligently dashed motor cycle from back side due to which he suffered injuries and his brother Mathuresh died. b.i.R. No. 204/1997 has been registered. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and after trial present petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as above. The appeal has been dismissed. Hence, this revision petition. 3. The contention of the present petitioner is that there is no evidence to prove that the present petitioner was rash and negligent in driving. Site plan does not corroborate the facts of the case and the benefit of probation may be extended to the present petitioner. 4. Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that there is no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below and there is no need to interfere in the revisional capacity. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the original record and impugned judgments. 6. Bijendra Singh an eye-witness who has stated that the tractor driven by the present petitioner has hit the motor cycle at the rear side, he fell down at a distance and all the three wheels of the tractor ran over his brother and he died. PW-2 Mohan Lal and PW-3 Ram Prasad eye-witnesses has also supported the story. It has been corroborated by the medical evidence. PW-2 Mohan Lal and PW-3 Ram Prasad eye-witnesses has also supported the story. It has been corroborated by the medical evidence. Statements of eyewitnesses clearly show the rash and negligence of the present petitioner as he hit the motor cycle at his rear side which clearly shows that he was negligent and he could not stop the tractor after the accident and three wheels ran over the body of the deceased which suffice to establish the rashness and negligence of the present petitioner. The Court below has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and given reasonable and cogent findings, there is no need to interfere in the findings of the Court below and the conviction of the petitioner is confirmed. 7. In view of the above, the conviction of the petitioner is rightly awarded and liable to be confirmed. 8. The other contention of the present petitioner is that the matter relates to 1997 the petitioner is facing trauma of proceedings since long, he should be released on imprisonment already undergone by him or benefit of probation be extended. He has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in Hamir Singh v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 12.5.2010 and on the case of Paul George v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2008) 4 SCC 185 . 9. In Hamir Singh (supra) looking to the peculiar facts of the case, petitioner has been allowed to be released on sentence already undergone and in Paul George (supra) the facts were entirely different. Therein the appellant was a public servant, Head Constable Driver in the Police, with unblemished career, hence benefit of probation was extended. 10. Here in the present case, the petitioner is a driver and due to his rash and negligent driving, one person died and others had received injuries. Looking to the present case, the present petitioner deserves no sympathy. In Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 , it has been held as under: "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 should not take a chance thinking that even if he is convicted, he would be dealt with leniently by the Court. A professional driver should not take a chance thinking that even if he is convicted, he would be dealt with leniently by the Court. The following principles laid down in that decision are very relevant- (1) When automobiles have become death traps any leniency shown to drivers who are fount guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. All those who are manning the steering of automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of (heir duty to adopt utmost care and also of the consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain deterrent element in sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and frolic. (2) 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 Section 304A I.P.C. as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders 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 he 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 the 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 for 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. 11. 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. 11. The same principles have been reiterated in the case of B. Nagabhushanam v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 5 SCC 730 , wherein it has been held as under: "On several occasions, has reminded the criminal Courts dealing with the offences relating to motor accidents that they cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probations of Offenders Act, 1958. We fully endorse the view expressed by this Court in Dalbir Singh (supra)." 12. Again, the Hon'ble Apex Court fortified its view earlier taken by the Court in the judgment delivered in the case of in State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh, 2012 (1) CJ (Cri.) (SC) 152 . 13. Looking at the above legal position and the considering the facts of the present case, it is not a fit case to deal with the petitioner liberally. The revision petition is dismissed. Petitioner is on bail. He is directed to surrender before the trial Court to undergo the rest of the sentences.Revision dismissed. *******