G.K.SHARMA,J. - (1.)BHAGIRATHSINGH who has been convicted of the offence under Section 304A, IPC, by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Neem -ka -Thana, and whose conviction and sentence were upheld by the Sessions Judge, Sikar, vide his judgment dated 14th July, 1978, has preferred this revision petition.
(2.)THE prosecution case is that on 29th September, 1970, Baagirath was driving a vehicle bearing No. R.J.V 660, and was going towards Neem -ka -thana. One Kaluram was going on the road along with hn bullocks. Narsa and Bhura were also going with Kaluram who also had bullocks with them. On hearing a sound of motor -bus, the bullocks got frightened, and the bus struck Kaluianu causing him injuries, which ultimately resulted in his death. After investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused -petitioner. The learned Magistrate, Neem -ka -Tbana found him guilty of the offence under Section 304A, IPC, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months, and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/ -; and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The said conviction and sentence passed against the accused petitioner, were upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar.
The only point argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner before me is, that the accident had taken place not on entire negligence of the driving of the vehicle, i.e, the accused -petitioner and that, he was driving there cautiously, and Kaluram along with the bullocks was crossing the road, and when the vehicle came near him. the bullocks got frightened and came in the centre of the road. The accused petitioner tried to save them, and as it is the evidence, he took his bus on the left side of the road, but, unfortunately, it struck Kaluram; who sustained injuries and ultimately expired. So, it cannot be said that the accused -petitioner was solely negligent in driving the bus and causing injuries thereby to Kaluram. However, it was argued that this accident relates to the year 1970, and after a lapse of about 14 years, if the accused petitioner is sent to jail, then, it would be a greit hardship to him. It was argued that the accused -petitioner has already been in jail after his conviction for about 18 days, and that, the sentence already undergone by him, would meet the ends of justice. No other point was raised in the revision petition.

(3.)THE learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has opposed the revision petition and argued that the judgment of the learned trial court is justified and the punishment awarded to the accused -petitioner is proper and reasonable, and that, on account of negligence of the petitioner, one person has lost his life, and as such, six months' rigrous imprisonment as awarded by the learned lower courts, is not excessive.