JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment dated 10.7.2008, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2007, affirming the judgment/order dated 19.5.2007/29.5.2007, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., in Police Challan No.19-I-2003/16-II-2007, whereby the learned trial Court while holding petitioner-accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC, convicted and sentenced him as under:- 1. To pay fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 279 of IPC. 2. To pay fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 337 of IPC. 3. To undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 338 of IPC. 4. To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 304-A IPC. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record are that on 11.8.2002, police after having received telephonic message, lodged rapat No.35, dated 11.8.2012 in police station, Hamripur. As per statement of the complainant recorded by the police, that he alongwith his father Rikhi Ram and Uttam Chand were loading woods/logs in their tractor on the road side at place near Ukhli. In the meantime, one truck bearing registration No.HP-21-0395 came in a high speed and dashed against their tractor, as a result of which, Amit Kumar got pressed with the wall. As per story of the prosecution, the injured was extracted after reversing the truck, but he had sustained injuries on his chest and other parts of his body i.e. his arms and legs. In the aforesaid accident, father of the Amit Kumar also sustained injuries on his neck, arm, head and other parts of the body. Since, Uttam Chand was standing on the side of the tractor, he sustained no injuries. It may be noticed that in the aforesaid unfortunate accident, Sh. Amit Kumar, who was sandwiched between the wall and truck lost his life. Police after completion of investigation, presented the challan in the competent Court of law. 3. Since, Uttam Chand was standing on the side of the tractor, he sustained no injuries. It may be noticed that in the aforesaid unfortunate accident, Sh. Amit Kumar, who was sandwiched between the wall and truck lost his life. Police after completion of investigation, presented the challan in the competent Court of law. 3. Learned trial Court after satisfying itself that a prima-facie case exists against the accused, framed charges under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence made available on record by the prosecution, found accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him, as per the description given hereinabove. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment/order dated 19.5.2007/29.5.2007, passed by learned trial Court, present petitioner-accused filed an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2007, however fact remains that aforesaid appeal filed by the petitioner-accused was dismissed, as a result of which, judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner approached this Court by way of instant criminal revision petition, praying therein for his acquittal after quashing and setting-aside the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below. 6. Mr. K.S. Banyal, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Virender Katoch, Advocate, representing the petitioner-accused, vehemently argued that the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable as the same are not based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties and as such, same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. While referring to the impugned judgments, Mr. Banyal, strenuously argued that bare perusal of the same suggest that Courts below have not appreciated the evidence adduced on record in its right perspective, as a result of which, erroneous findings to the detriment of the petitioner-accused have come on record, who is admittedly innocent person. Mr. While referring to the impugned judgments, Mr. Banyal, strenuously argued that bare perusal of the same suggest that Courts below have not appreciated the evidence adduced on record in its right perspective, as a result of which, erroneous findings to the detriment of the petitioner-accused have come on record, who is admittedly innocent person. Mr. Banyal, while inviting the attention of this Court to the evidence led on record by the prosecution, forcibly contended that none of the prosecution witnesses stated something specific with regard to the high speed of the truck. He also stated that conjoint reading of the statements having been made by the prosecution witnesses nowhere suggest that the truck in question was being driven by the petitioner-accused in rash and negligent manner at that time and as such, Courts below have wrongly held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. 7. Mr. Banyal, further contended that though perusal of the evidence led on record by the prosecution nowhere suggest that the accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner-accused, but even if this Court comes to the conclusion that the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below are correct in law, in that eventuality petitioner deserves to be given benefit of probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. He also stated that since this accident occurred in the year, 2002 and more than 14 years have passed and during this period petitioner has already suffered lot of mental agony and harassment. Moreover, he is first offender and there is no case pending against him in any court of law, besides this he has only eight years old daughter and there is no body to look after her as the petitioner has already lost his wife in the year, 2016. In the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that present petitioner-accused may be acquitted of the charges after setting aside and quashing the impugned judgments passed by the learned Courts below. 8. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, supported the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below and stated that no interference, whatsoever, of this Court is warranted in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. 8. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, supported the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below and stated that no interference, whatsoever, of this Court is warranted in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. Thakur, while refuting the aforesaid submission having been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that bare perusal of the judgments passed by the learned courts below suggest that each and every aspect of the matter has been dealt with very meticulously and there is no illegality in the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below and as such, there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, of this court, especially in view of the concurrent findings of fact and law recorded by the courts below. Mr. Thakur, made this Court to travel through the evidence led on record by the prosecution to demonstrate that the accident in question stands duly proved and as such, there is no force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Thakur, while placing reliance upon the statement having been made by the prosecution witnesses stated that all the material prosecution witnesses have categorically stated that the accident occurred due to high speed of the truck, which was being driven by the petitioner- accused. Mr. Thakur, further contended that petitioner deserve no leniency, especially in view of the fact that one person has lost his life in the accident. He also invited the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab versus Saurabh Bakshi 2015 (5) SCC 182 ; wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that Courts below while dealing with the accident cases should exercise great constraint while taking lenient view against reckless drivers, who drives rashly and negligently. Mr. Thakur, also submitted that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, Court has very limited powers to re-appreciate the evidence available on record. Learned Deputy Advocate General, has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case State of Kerala versus Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999)2 SCC 452 . 9. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Thakur prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any merit. 10. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have carefully gone through the record made available. 9. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Thakur prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any merit. 10. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have carefully gone through the record made available. 11. As far as scope of power of this Court while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishnan and another Versus Krishnaveni and another, (1997) 4 SCC 241 ; has held that in case Court notices that there is a failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “8. The object of Section 483 and the purpose behind conferring the revisional power under Section 397 read with Section 401, upon the High Court is to invest continuous supervisory jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to mete out justice. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However, the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised revisional power under Section 397(1). However, when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order.” 12. During the proceeding of the case, this Court had an occasion to peruse the impugned judgments as well as entire evidence led on record by the prosecution, perusal whereof, certainly not suggest that the learned courts below have mis-appreciated the evidence, rather this Court after having carefully perused the evidence led on record by the prosecution has no hesitation to conclude that both the courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and have rightly come to the conclusion that the truck was being driven by the petitioner-accused in rash and negligent manner. 13. This Court, solely with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, carefully perused each and every statements having been made by the prosecution witnesses. All the prosecution witnesses have unequivocally stated that at the relevant time truck in question was being driven by the petitioner-accused in a high speed and accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner-accused. All the prosecution witnesses have stated that injuries was caused on the body of deceased Amit Kumar while he was collecting wood/logs from the place called as Ukhli. The photographs Ex. P-1 to Ex.P-5 placed on record, leaves no scope of this court to agree with the contention having been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that truck was being driven in normal speed and on its own side because it is ample clear from the perusal of the photographs that truck in question was on its wrong side and after seeing the positioning of the truck, as depicted in the photographs, it can be safely inferred that since truck in question was in high speed, it failed to negotiate the curve, as a result of which, it stuck against the victims, who were collecting/loading wood/logs from the spot. In his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C petitioner-accused has not disputed the accident as well as factum with regard to vehicle being driven by him. Petitioner-accused in his defence placed reliance upon the statement of DW-1, Roshan Lal, who gave all together different version. In his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C petitioner-accused has not disputed the accident as well as factum with regard to vehicle being driven by him. Petitioner-accused in his defence placed reliance upon the statement of DW-1, Roshan Lal, who gave all together different version. He stated that he was coming from Targel village at about 8:00 PM and injured were loading wood/ logs in the tractor and due to rainy season, Amit Kumar slipped as he had lifted the logs of 65 KG , as a result of which, he sustained injuries. But, the version as put forth by him was rightly not appreciated by the courts below because in his cross-examination, he admitted that he started from village Targel at about 8:00 PM, whereas, admittedly the accident occurred at 7:30 PM. It is not understood that when he had started from village Targel at 8:00 PM, how he could witness the incident, which admittedly occurred at place Ukhli at about 7:30 PM. Moreover, aforesaid version put forth by this witness cannot be appreciated in the light of the specific opinion made by the mechanical expert where it stands duly proved that in the aforesaid accident wind screen, head lights, front bumper and number plate of ill-fated truck was badly damaged. There is no explanation, worth the name, led on record by the petitioner-accused that in case the accident had not occurred as alleged by the prosecution, how aforesaid damage was caused to the truck in question. 14. After having bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the material adduced on record by the prosecution, I have no hesitation to conclude that there is not illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below, rather same are based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution. This Court also sees no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because there is overwhelming evidence, as discussed above, suggestive of the fact that truck in question was being driven at that time by the petitioner-accused that too in rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, few people sustained injuries and one of them unfortunately lost his life. Accordingly, the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below are upheld. 15. Accordingly, the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below are upheld. 15. Now, this Court shall proceed to consider the prayer having been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for releasing the petitioner-accused on probation, keeping in view the fact that petitioner-accused is first offender and there is no case against the petitioner-accused pending in any competent court of law. Learned counsel representing the petitioner further stated that mitigating circumstance in this case is that more than 9 years have passed after passing of the judgment dated 19.5.2007, whereby the accused was convicted and he has already suffered mental agony during the pendency of the appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur as well as in High Court of Himachal Pradesh. In support of the aforesaid arguments, Mr. Banyal, also invited the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in Yudhbir Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh 1998 (1) S.L.J. 58, wherein it has been held as under:- “9. The only mitigating circumstance that appears to be there is that the time gap of about six years between the date of occurrence as well as the date of decision of this revision petitioner. During this entire period sword of present case looming over the head of the petitioner was always there. That being so, this court is of the view that instead of sending the petitioner to jail as ordered by the courts below, he is given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, it is ordered that he shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today to keep peace and to be of good behavior for a period of one year from the date of execution of the bond before the court below as well as not to commit any such offence. In addition to being given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, petitioner is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- each to PWs Baldev Singh and Dilbagh Singh injured as compensation. Shri R.K. Gautam submitted that this amount of compensation be deposited with the trial Court on or before 31.8.1997, who will thereafter pay the same to said persons.” 16. 3,000/- each to PWs Baldev Singh and Dilbagh Singh injured as compensation. Shri R.K. Gautam submitted that this amount of compensation be deposited with the trial Court on or before 31.8.1997, who will thereafter pay the same to said persons.” 16. He also placed reliance upon the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment Ramesh Kumar @ Babla versus State of Punjab 2016 AIR (SC) 2858, wherein it has been held as under: “7. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part by converting appellant’s conviction under Section 307 IPC to one under Section 324 IPC. On the question of sentence, it is pertinent to note that the occurrence took place in 1997. In his statement under Section 313 of the code of Criminal Procedure the appellant gave his age in 2002 as 36 years. He claimed that he and others went to the place of occurrence on getting information that his brother Sanjay Kumar was assaulted by Ramesh Kumar (Complainant). He brought his brother to Police Station and lodged a report. As noticed by trial court, parties are involved in civil as well as criminal litigation from before. High Court has noted that appellant, as per custody certificate, is not involved in any other case. In such circumstances, it is not deemed necessary to send the appellant immediately to Jail custody after about 19 years of the occurrence when he appears to be 50 years of age and fully settled in life. 8. In view of aforesaid, in our view the ends of justice would be met by granting benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant. We order accordingly and direct that the appellant be released on executing appropriate bond before the trial court to appear and receive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year when called upon to do so and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.” 17. On the other hand, Mr. Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, invited attention of this Court to the judgment passed in the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dalbir Singh versus State of Haryana 2000 (5) SCC 82 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under :- 13. On the other hand, Mr. Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, invited attention of this Court to the judgment passed in the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dalbir Singh versus State of Haryana 2000 (5) SCC 82 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under :- 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 Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 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 for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of the vehicle he cannot escape from a 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. 14. Thus, bestowing our serious consideration on the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant we express our inability to lean towards the benevolent provision in Section 4 of the PO Act. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 18. This Court also cannot loose sight of the stern observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab versus Saurabh Bakshi 2015 (5) SCC 182 . While dealing with the accident case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken serious view of reduction of sentences by the courts below. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 18. This Court also cannot loose sight of the stern observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab versus Saurabh Bakshi 2015 (5) SCC 182 . While dealing with the accident case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken serious view of reduction of sentences by the courts below. Their lordships in the aforesaid judgment in paras No. 1, 14, 23, 24 and 25 have held as under; “1. Long back, an eminent thinker and author, Sophocles, had to say: “Law can never be enforced unless fear supports them.” Though the aforesaid statement was made centuries back, it has its pertinence, in a way, with the enormous vigour, in today’s society. It is the duty of every right thinking citizen to show veneration to law so that an orderly, civilized and peaceful society emerges. It has to be borne in mind that law is averse to any kind of chaos. It is totally intolerant of anarchy. If any one defies law, he has to face the wrath of law, depending on the concept of proportionality that the law recognizes. It can never be forgotten that the purpose of criminal law legislated by the competent legislatures, subject to judicial scrutiny within constitutionally established parameters, is to protect the collective interest and save every individual that forms a constituent of the collective from unwarranted hazards. It is sometimes said in an egocentric and uncivilised manner that law cannot bind the individual actions which are perceived as flaws by the large body of people, but, the truth is and has to be that when the law withstands the test of the constitutional scrutiny in a democracy, the individual notions are to be ignored. At times certain crimes assume more accent and gravity depending on the nature and impact of the crime on the society. No court should ignore the same being swayed by passion of mercy. It is the obligation of the court to constantly remind itself that the right of the victim, and be it said, on certain occasions the person aggrieved as well as the society at large can be victims, never be marginalized. In this context one may recapitulate the saying of Justice Benjamin N. Cardizo “Justice, though due to the accused, is due to the accuser too”. And, therefore, the requisite norm has to be the established principles laid down in precedents. In this context one may recapitulate the saying of Justice Benjamin N. Cardizo “Justice, though due to the accused, is due to the accuser too”. And, therefore, the requisite norm has to be the established principles laid down in precedents. It is neither to be guided by a sense of sentimentality nor to be governed by prejudices. 14. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision in Balwinder Singh (supra) wherein the High Court had allowed the revision and reduced the quantum of sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for the offences punishable under Section 304A, 337, 279 of IPC by reducing the sentence of imprisonment already undergone that is 15 days. The court referred to the decision in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana and reproduced two paragraphs which we feel extremely necessary for reproduction:- (Balwinder Singh case, SCC pp. 186-87, para-12) “12…1. When automobiles have become death traps any leniency shown to drivers who are found 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 their 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 a deterrent element in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic. 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 Section 304-A IPC 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 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. 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 for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of the vehicle he cannot escape from a 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.” (Dalbir Singh case, SCC pp. 84-85 & 87, paras 1 &13)” 23. In the instant case the factum of rash and negligent driving has been established. This Court has been constantly noticing the increase in number of road accidents and has also noticed how the vehicle drivers have been totally rash and negligent. It seems to us driving in a drunken state, in a rash and negligent manner or driving with youthful adventurous enthusiasm as if there are no traffic rules or no discipline of law has come to the centre stage. The protagonists, as we perceive, have lost all respect for law. A man with means has, in possibility, graduated himself to harbor the idea that he can escape from the substantive sentence by payment of compensation. Neither the law nor the court that implements the law should ever get oblivious of the fact that in such accidents precious lives are lost or the victims who survive are crippled for life which, in a way, is worse than death. Such developing of notions is a dangerous phenomenon in a orderly society. Young age cannot be a plea to be accepted in all circumstances. Life to the poor or the impecunious is a worth living for as it is to the rich and the luxuriously temperamental. 24. Such developing of notions is a dangerous phenomenon in a orderly society. Young age cannot be a plea to be accepted in all circumstances. Life to the poor or the impecunious is a worth living for as it is to the rich and the luxuriously temperamental. 24. Needless to say, the principle of sentencing recognizes the corrective measures but there are occasions when the deterrence is an imperative necessity depending upon the facts of the case. In our opinion, it is a fit case where we are constrained to say that the High Court has been swayed away by the passion of mercy in applying the principle that payment of compensation is a factor for reduction of sentence to 24 days. It is absolutely in the realm of misplaced sympathy. It is, in a way mockery of justice. Because justice is “the crowning glory”, “the sovereign mistress” and “queen of virtue” as Cicero had said. Such a crime blights not only the lives of the victims but of many others around them. It ultimately shatters the faith of the public in judicial system. In our view, the sentence of one year as imposed by the trial Magistrate which has been affirmed by the appellate court should be reduced to six months. 25. Before parting with the case we are compelled to observe that India has a disreputable record of road accidents. There is a nonchalant attitude among the drivers. They feel that they are the “Emperors of all they survey”. Drunkenness contributes to careless driving where the other people become their prey. The poor feel that their lives are not safe, the pedestrians think of uncertainty and the civilized persons drive in constant fear but still apprehensive about the obnoxious attitude of the people who project themselves as “larger than life”. In such obtaining circumstances, we are bound to observe that the law-makers should scrutinize, relook and revisit the sentencing policy in Section 304-A IPC, so with immense anguish.” 19. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the law cited by Mr. Banyal, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner- accused viz-a-viz facts of the present case, I am of the view that same cannot be made applicable in the present case for granting the benefit of Section 4 of probation of Offenders Act, 1958. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the law cited by Mr. Banyal, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner- accused viz-a-viz facts of the present case, I am of the view that same cannot be made applicable in the present case for granting the benefit of Section 4 of probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Saurabh Bakshi case (supra) has deprecated the practice of Courts in settling the matter by awarding compensation or releasing the accused by giving the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, especially in offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, where there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that vehicle was being driven by the accused in most rash and negligent manner, no leniency can be shown to the accused. 20. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court sees no reason whatsoever, to interfere with the well reasoned judgments passed by both the Courts below, which appear to be based upon correct appreciation of the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution. This Court is fully convinced after perusing the evidence led on record that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, keeping in view the fact that this accident had occurred in the year 2002 i.e. 14 years back and during this period present petitioner-accused must have suffered some kind of mental agony and he has a family to support, this Court deems it fit to modify the sentence awarded by the Court below. Otherwise also, it appears that the punishment awarded by the Court below is on the higher side and, as such, same is reduced to two months only in toto qua all the offences. 21. Hence, the judgment passed by the court below is modified to that extent only and revision petition is dismissed accordingly. Order dated 24.4.2009, passed by this Court, whereby sentence imposed by the court below was suspended, is hereby vacated and the petitioner-accused is directed to surrender himself before the learned trial Court forthwith to serve the sentence as awarded by learned trial court subject to the modification made hereinabove. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.