JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This Revision Application has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 07/01/2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Margao (Appellate Court) in Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2011 by which the judgment and sentence dated 26th/29th August, 2011 delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-da-Gama (Trial Magistrate) in Criminal Case No. 84/S/2010/D has been confirmed and the present petitioner, who was the accused in the said case, has been directed to surrender and suffer the imprisonment imposed against him and to pay the fine as ordered or to suffer further imprisonment in default. 3. The Vasco Police had filed charge sheet against the accused for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), alleging that on 05/03/2010 at 11.50 hours near Vaddem Bridge, opposite Goa Shipyard Ltd., the accused being the driver of Mini Bus bearing registration no. GA-02/T-4897, drove the same in rash and negligent manner while proceeding from Chicalim to Vasco and when reached near Vaddem Bridge, on descending road opposite to Goa Shipyard Limited, went off the road and the Mini Bus fell into the nullah, thereby causing grievous injuries to some passengers and simple injuries to other passengers. The said charge sheet was registered as Criminal Case No. 84/S/2010/D. 4. Charge was framed and explained to the accused by the Trial Magistrate to which the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined altogether 18 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) came to be recorded. The case of the accused was that the accident occurred as tyre of the vehicle got punctured. The accused did not examine any witness in his defence. 5. Upon appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned Trial Magistrate found that the ocular evidence adduced by PW1 Anita Cunha, PW3 Saju Krishna Chopdekar, PW5 Ramani Dara, PW7 Shailaja Vivek and PW16 Smita Sawant established that the Mini Bus was driven at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner on a public way. 5. Upon appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned Trial Magistrate found that the ocular evidence adduced by PW1 Anita Cunha, PW3 Saju Krishna Chopdekar, PW5 Ramani Dara, PW7 Shailaja Vivek and PW16 Smita Sawant established that the Mini Bus was driven at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner on a public way. The Trial Magistrate further held that PW5 and PW6 sustained grievous injuries in the form of fracture whereas other witnesses sustained simple injuries, as a result of the accident caused by the accused. The accused was therefore held guilty and convicted of the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 of I.P.C.. In respect of Section 279 of I.PC., he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-(Rupees One Thousand Only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days. In respect of Section 337 of I.P.C., the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days and lastly for the offence under Section 338 of I.P.C., he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupee One Thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 30 days. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and sentence delivered by the learned Trial Magistrate, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2011. By impugned Judgment and Order dated 07/01/2013, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and sentence of the Trial Magistrate. The accused has filed the present Revision Application against the said judgment. 7. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, while assailing the impugned Judgment, submitted that the only independent witness namely PW1 Anita Cunha who was not a passenger, had deposed in the open Court on the basis of a piece of paper, clandestinely brought by her in the open Court, wherein the date and time of accident and the registration number of the vehicle was mentioned. He submitted that such a witness ought not to have been relied upon. He submitted that such a witness ought not to have been relied upon. He pointed out that the said witness was 62 years old as on the date of deposition and she had not seen the driver. He submitted that the Mini Bus had come from behind of PW1 and therefore she had not seen as to what happened to the said bus to go off the bridge and fall in the nullah. He further pointed out from her cross-examination, that PW1 could not say as to what was speed of the Mini Bus. The learned Counsel further submitted that several injured witnesses namely PW2-Satya Prakash Kandu, PW3-Saju Krishna Chopdekar, PW5-Ramani Dara, PW6Marcelina Vaz, PW7-Shailaja Vivek, PW8-Maria Luis, PW9-Banamali Manna, PW10-Rameshwari Naik, PW12-Mini Juliet, PW13- Nilawwa Chandragi, PW14-Jose Reveredo, PW15-Ramchandra Mulik and PW16-Smita Sawant were examined by the prosecution but they did not corroborate each other. The learned Counsel submitted that the speed, even if it was high, could not be the only criteria. My attention was drawn to the suggestion put to almost all the witnesses that the tyre of the Mini Bus had burst and therefore the accident had taken place. He pointed out from the evidence of PW11, Motor Vehicle Inspector that the front right hand side tyre was flat. Hence, according to the learned Counsel, the accused had reasonably proved his defence that due to bursting of the tyre, the bus had gone on the extreme left side and had fallen in nullah due to which unfortunately the witnesses sustained injuries. He submitted that the accident was inevitable but was without any fault on the part of the accused. He therefore urged that the impugned judgment of the Sessions Judge and also the Judgment/sentence of the Trial Magistrate are perverse and liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, relied upon following judgments: i. Madhukar Ventakesh Kulkarni V/s. State of Maharashtra [(1983)1 Bom CR 307] ii. Suresh Chandra V/s. State of Rajasthan [(1990) 2 Crimes (HC) 626] iii. Durgappa V/s. State of Karnataka [(2008 5 Kar L.J. 668] iv. State of Karnataka V/s. Satish [(1998) 0 SCC (Cri) 1508] v. Kushal Singh V/s. State of H.P. [(2009) 4 Crimes (HC) 182] 9. Per contra, Ms. Suresh Chandra V/s. State of Rajasthan [(1990) 2 Crimes (HC) 626] iii. Durgappa V/s. State of Karnataka [(2008 5 Kar L.J. 668] iv. State of Karnataka V/s. Satish [(1998) 0 SCC (Cri) 1508] v. Kushal Singh V/s. State of H.P. [(2009) 4 Crimes (HC) 182] 9. Per contra, Ms. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fully supporting the impugned Judgment, submitted that the hurt certificates in respect of the injured persons were produced under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. since the genuineness of the same was not disputed by the accused. She pointed out that PW3, PW5, PW9 and one Sasha D'Souza, a four years old minor girl had sustained grievous injuries whereas various other passengers of the said Mini Bus had sustained simple injuries. She submitted that all the injured persons were eyewitnesses and PW1 was an independent witness who was not traveling in the said Mini Bus. She submitted that all the eyewitnesses had corroborated each other in saying that the said Mini Bus was driven at a fast speed and it went off the road and fell into the nullah and this was the direct cause for injuries sustained by the witnesses. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the accused has been rightly held guilty, convicted and sentenced for the said offences and no interference with the impugned judgment is called for. 10. I have carefully gone through the original records and proceedings. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the Counsel for the accused. 11. PW1, Smt. Anita Cunha deposed that she witnessed the accident on 05/03/2010. The accident, according to her, had occurred at around 11.05 hours and she was returning home from the shop of one Shri Mr. Govind, situated at the junction of New Vaddem. She further deposed that while she was walking on the road, one bus came from behind at a fast speed which was proceeding towards Vasco and the same came towards her due to which she moved a little further and thereafter the bus went off the bridge and fell in the nullah. She deposed that as a result of the dash, the aluminum railing of the bridge, was damaged. She rushed to the spot in the nullah and removed one small boy from the Mini Bus. She deposed that as a result of the dash, the aluminum railing of the bridge, was damaged. She rushed to the spot in the nullah and removed one small boy from the Mini Bus. She deposed that she did not see the driver when he was removed from the Mini Bus but she saw him in the hospital. However, she could not identify the accused, in the Court, as a driver of the Mini Bus. 12. This witness (PW1) had brought along with her a small piece of paper on which, the date and time of the accident and number of the vehicle was mentioned. The said piece of paper was taken on record by the Trial Magistrate and marked as Exhibit C-10. It appears that PW1 had noted down the said details so that she should not forgot them. Nothing regarding the said piece of paper has been asked to PW1 in her cross-examination and therefore no suspicion can be raised on that ground. In her cross-examination, PW1 deposed that her statement was read over to her on that day. She could not tell as to what was the speed of the bus. She specifically denied the suggestion that the accident took place because one of the tyres of the bus got punctured at the bus stand. The tenor of deposition of PW1 itself shows that she is a most natural witness. She has clarified that she never appeared as a witness in the Court prior to that day. Except for few minor omissions with regard to her police statement, nothing has come on record in the cross-examination of PW1, which could drive the Court to disbelieve her. The fact that the Mini Bus went off the road and dashed the aluminum railing of the bridge and fell into the nullah was not denied. 13. PW3, Shri Saju Krishna Chopdekar, was one of the passengers standing in the said mini bus and according to him it was driven at a fast speed and very roughly and it crushed into the railing of the bridge opposite Goa Shipyard Limited and fell into the nullah due to which most of the passengers including him sustained injuries. 14. PW5, Miss Ramani Dara was also a passenger in the same Mini Bus and her niece namely Miss Sasha D'Souza aged only 4 ½ years was with her at the relevant time. 14. PW5, Miss Ramani Dara was also a passenger in the same Mini Bus and her niece namely Miss Sasha D'Souza aged only 4 ½ years was with her at the relevant time. According to PW5, she was standing in the bus near the door along with her niece as they were supposed to get down near Goa Shipyard Limited. She deposed that the bus was driven at a very fast speed even on reaching the slope and that then all of a sudden, the bus went on the railing of the bridge and fell down into the nullah. She stated that she had suffered a fracture injury to her hand on account of the accident and her niece also suffered a fracture to her left hand. Both were first taken to Cottage Hospital and thereafter, to SMRC, where her niece was admitted. 15. PW6, Miss Marcelina Vaz is another eyewitness being a passenger of said Mini Bus. She deposed that she was sitting on the right hand side of the bus in the middle and that the bus was driven at a very high speed and when it reached near the bridge near Goa Shipyard Limited it went off the road and fell into the nullah as a result of which, she sustained injuries to her right leg and upper side of both the legs. PW 6 further deposed that other passengers of the bus had also suffered injuries. 16. PW7, Smt. Shailaja Vivek, PW8, Smt. Maria Luis, PW9, Shri Banamali Manna, PW10, Smt. Rameshwari Naik, PW12, Smt. Mini Juliet, PW13, Smt. Nilawwa Chandragi, PW14, Shri Jose Reveredo, PW15, Shri Ramchandra Mulik and PW16 Smt. Smita Sawant were all the passengers of the said Mini Bus and they all deposed that the bus was driven at a fast speed and that it fell into the nullah after damaging the railings of the bridge. All the said witnesses deposed that they had sustained injuries. PW9 deposed that he suffered fracture to his right hand. 17. PW8, Smt. Maria Luis stated that the other passengers of the Mini Bus had informed her that the name of the driver was Feroz. PW16, Smt. Smita Sawant specifically stated that she was standing in the said Mini Bus just behind the driver's seat. She identified the accused as the driver of the said Mini Bus. 17. PW8, Smt. Maria Luis stated that the other passengers of the Mini Bus had informed her that the name of the driver was Feroz. PW16, Smt. Smita Sawant specifically stated that she was standing in the said Mini Bus just behind the driver's seat. She identified the accused as the driver of the said Mini Bus. In her cross-examination, PW16 stated that the cleaner of the Mini Bus had called the said driver as Firoz and hence she had mentioned this name in her police statement. PW18, Lady Assistant Sub Inspector stated that she registered the M.V. Accident No, 49/2010 and accompanied Police Sub Inspector Vaibhav Naik and two constables and went to the spot. At the spot, they noticed the Mini Bus. No. GA-02/P-4897 fallen in a nullah. According to her, the injured and the driver of the said Mini Bus were shifted to Cottage Hospital. The hurt certificate pertaining to the accused Firoz Ali Aga is a part of Exhibit 47colly. The accused had sustained two lacerations. Thus the accused cannot deny that he was the driver of the said Mini Bus at the time of accident. 18. A perusal of the evidence of PW2, Shri Satya Prakash Kandu, who acted as one of the panch witnesses for the panchanama of the scene of accident and sketch (Exhibit 12-Colly) and the said panchanama and sketch, revealed that the Mini Bus was proceeding from Chikalim towards Vasco City side and it fell into the nullah which was on the left hand side of the road going from Chikalim towards Vasco City. The Sketch showed that the road was straight. PW2 deposed that the bus had fallen between the sewerage pipeline and the bridge in the nullah and that it was the white colour mini passenger bus. He had reached the spot when passengers were being removed out of the said mini bus. According to him, the bus was facing Vasco. He identified his signature on the panchanama and the sketch which are at Exhibit 12 Colly. The evidence of eye witnesses also revealed that the said Mini Bus was driven from the left side of the road. According to him, the bus was facing Vasco. He identified his signature on the panchanama and the sketch which are at Exhibit 12 Colly. The evidence of eye witnesses also revealed that the said Mini Bus was driven from the left side of the road. Hence, mere fact that the Mini Bus went off the road and fell into the nullah, was enough to establish the rashness and negligence of the accused-driver of the said Mini Bus, unless he was able to show that the same happened due to some cause beyond his control. 19. No doubt a suggestion was put to all the said eye witnesses that the tyre of the said bus had burst and that the accident occurred due to the same. However, all the witnesses denied the said suggestion. In this regard, the evidence of the Motor Vehicle Inspector becomes relevant. 20. PW11, Shri Shrinivas P. Kamat was a Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the said mini bus on 23/03/2010. According to him, the said Mini Bus was totally damaged having damage to the front bumper, the roof above the driver's cabin on the left hand side and the passenger compartment door pillars on the left hand side. He deposed that the passengers seats back rest was bent in forward direction. He deposed that the side shell of the vehicle body was damaged on its left hand side just behind the left hand side tyre and also on the right hand side at rear most portion. The front head lights and side indicators of both left hand side as well as on right hand side were broken. All the glasses of the window panes on left hand side and that of two window panes on right hand side of passenger compartment were broken. The motor vehicle could not be driven and road tested as it was not road worthy. The front show, front wind glasses both left as well as right hand side were broken. PW11 deposed that the right hand side front tyre was flat at the place at the time of inspection. Further, he added that the brakes were intact. According to him, the said right front tyre though was flat, had not burst but the air was released from the tyre. He explained that if tyre had burst, there would have been a scratch mark on the tyre disk. Further, he added that the brakes were intact. According to him, the said right front tyre though was flat, had not burst but the air was released from the tyre. He explained that if tyre had burst, there would have been a scratch mark on the tyre disk. Thus, from the evidence of PW11, it can be certainly said that the tyre of the bus had not burst at the time of accident. The accused tried to take advantage of the fact that the air from the tyre of the bus was released and therefore it was flat. 21. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused did not dispute the fact that it was the accused who was driving the said Mini Bus at the time of accident. He also did not dispute the occurrence of the said accident and the fact that the Mini Bus had fallen down in nullah and injuries, grievous and simple, having been caused to various passengers as a result of the said accident. The evidence of all the above witnesses, as discussed above, sufficiently proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had driven the said Mini Bus and that the said accident occurred due to the rashness and/or negligence on the part of the accused in driving the same. It could even be said that the bus was driven at a fast speed, as otherwise there would have been no difficulty to the accused to have applied brakes and stopped it. 22. In the case of “Madhukar Venkatesh Kulkarni” (supra), It was the case of the accused that he was driving the bus at a moderate speed but was required to apply the brakes as certain goats suddenly came on the road and the result of the sudden application of the brakes was that the bus dashed against the guard stones and the tree. A learned Single Judge of this Court found that the statement of the accused that the bus was in damaged condition when he took it over at Sangola could not be discarded. The evidence on record as regards the speed at which the bus was driven was not very reliable and the passengers traveling in the bus had given conflicting versions as regards the speed of the bus. The evidence on record as regards the speed at which the bus was driven was not very reliable and the passengers traveling in the bus had given conflicting versions as regards the speed of the bus. It was observed that in cases of such accidents, it was always necessary to remember that as soon as the brakes were suddenly applied, the vehicle was likely to swerve and when a driver came across some sudden obstacle on the road, the anxiety was to swerve to the left. It was held that on the facts and circumstances of the case, it was difficult to hold that the explanation given by the accused was not plausible one. The judgment (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 23. In the case of “Suresh Chandra” (supra), the report of the mechanic which was at Exhibit P/5 clearly pointed out that the brakes had suddenly went out of order due to which the accused could not stop the vehicle even if he wanted to do so. It was found that the accident took place because the brakes had failed suddenly and therefore it was held that it could be said that the accused was driving the jeep rashly and negligently. The above judgment is not applicable to the present case since in the present case as per the report of the PW11, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, the brakes were in order and were in working condition and there was no mechanical defect. The tyre had not burst for the mini bus to suddenly go off the road and fall into the nullah. 24. In case of “Durgappa” (supra), the Karnataka High Court observed that the over all appreciation of the material on record revealed that the petitioner was driving the bus and the bus took deviation at the spot of the accident and went to the wrong side and hit the house. It was observed that the principle of res ipsa loquitur if applied, the negligence was presumed as the vehicle had left the road and hit the house. But it was well established principle of law that the presumption itself was not sufficient to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Karnataka High Court held that the presumption could be sufficient to prove the civil liability but not to award conviction and sentence. But it was well established principle of law that the presumption itself was not sufficient to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Karnataka High Court held that the presumption could be sufficient to prove the civil liability but not to award conviction and sentence. In the case supra, the Karnataka High Court came to the conclusion that possibility that the boy had come across the road abruptly and in order to avoid accident and death of the child, the driver had taken the vehicle to the wrong side and had hit the house, could not be overruled. It was therefore that the conviction was set aside. The above case is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case since admittedly in the present case no person nor any animal had abruptly come across the said mini bus for it to go off to road and fall into the nullah. 25. In the case of “Satish” (supra), the Apex Court observed that merely because the truck was being driven at a “high speed” did not speak of either “negligence” or “rashness” by itself. It was observed that “high speed” was a relative term and it was for the prosecution to bring on record the material to establish as to what was meant by “high speed” in the facts and circumstances of the case. There was no dispute that mere “high speed” did not speak of rashness or negligence. In the present case before this Court, it was not just the high speed of the Mini Bus that was concerned but what was material was the fact that the Mini Bus was driven roughly and it went off the road and fell into the nullah. 26. In the case of “Kushal Singh” (supra), it has been held that in order to prove the offence under Section 279 of I.P.C. It is not the speed alone which is decisive factor but the prosecution is obliged to prove rash and negligent act of the driver of offending vehicle by a cogent and reliable evidence. There can be no quarrel about the above principle. 27. There can be no quarrel about the above principle. 27. Hurt certificates, issued by the Medical officer of Cottage Hospital, Chikalim; Assistant Lecturer in casualty, of Goa Medical College Hospital; Sanjeevani Hospital, Vasco-De-Gama; and SMRC, Chikalim, in respect of the injured persons are all on record at Exhibit 47 colly, the genuineness of which has not been disputed. These hurt certificate read with the ocular evidence of the witnesses named in those certificates fully establish that PW3, PW7, PW9 had sustained grievous injuries and various other witnesses had sustained simple injuries. The evidence of PW9 read with the hurt certificate pertaining to Ms. Sasha D'Souza, a four years old girl also reveals that Sasha had sustained grievous injuries. These injuries were a direct consequence of the accident caused by the accused. 28. In the circumstance above, the learned Trial Magistrate had rightly held that the accused was guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the I.P.C. Hence, no interference is called for with the impugned judgment in so far as the conviction of the accused is concerned. The learned Appellate Court has rightly confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court in so far as the conviction of accused is concerned. 29. It is seen that the learned Trial Magistrate has imposed maximum punishment on the accused in respect of the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. In respect of the offence under Section 338 of I.P.C., the learned Trial Magistrate has imposed sentence of imprisonment for one year. It is pertinent to note that the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor had submitted before the Trial Magistrate that since the offences committed by the accused had resulted in injuries to several people, they should be adequately compensated. However, the learned Trial Magistrate does not appear to have taken note of the said submission made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. lays down that when a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced. Insofar as the fine amount of Rs. Insofar as the fine amount of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) is concerned, the accused has already deposited the same in this Court. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, upon instructions from the accused, submitted that the said fine of Rs. 2500/-be considered as compensation and the accused would pay further compensation of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the injured persons. It is seen that the learned Appellate Court had pronounced the judgment on 07/01/2013 on which date itself, the accused had surrendered before the Trial Magistrate and he was committed to Sub-Jail Sada, Vasco to undergo the sentence. After the accused filed the present appeal, he was released on bail on 01/02/2013. Thus, the accused has already undergone imprisonment for a period of 26 days and has understood the seriousness of committing offence of rash and negligent driving. In my considered view, the punishment of imprisonment already undergone by him coupled with a direction that the amount of fine of Rs. 2,500/-will be considered as part compensation and direction to the accused to pay further compensation of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to be paid to the injured persons, should be adequate punishment for the accused person. 30. The accused has today submitted a cheque of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) in the name of Registrar of this Court. The said amount of Rs. 50,000/- and the amount of Rs. 2,500/-deposited by the accused shall be considered as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr. P.C. 31. In view of the above, the following order is made: ORDER (a) The appeal is partly allowed. (b) The impugned Judgment and Order of conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. is confirmed. (c) However, the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court is quashed and set aside. (d) The accused stands sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. cumulatively to undergo imprisonment for 26 days which he has already undergone and to pay compensation of Rs. 52,500/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred only), in terms of Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., to be paid to the injured persons. (e) Out of the said amount of Rs. 52,500/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred only) deposited by the accused, an amount of Rs. 52,500/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred only), in terms of Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., to be paid to the injured persons. (e) Out of the said amount of Rs. 52,500/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred only) deposited by the accused, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) each shall be paid to the nine witnesses who have sustained simple injuries namely PW6, PW7, PW8, PW10, PW12, PW13, PW14, PW15 and PW16. (g) The balance amount of Rs. 34,500/- (Rupees Thirty four Thousand Five Hundred only) shall be equally distributed and paid to the four witnesses who have sustained grievous injuries namely PW3, PW5, PW9 and Ms. Sasha D'Souza. In other words, an amount of Rs. 8625/- each shall be paid to the above witnesses who sustained grievous injuries. (h) The registrar to send notices to the said injured persons and pay the amount of the compensation to them. This exercise shall be started within one month from today. (i) Bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stand canceled. 32. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Appeal partly allowed.