ORDER

Leave granted.

2. No one is appearing for the Respondent in spite of service of notice to show cause why the impugned judgment of the High Court shall not be set aside and the matter remitted back to the High Court for disposal of the revision afresh in accordance with law.

3. In this case Respondent was convicted under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. He filed an appeal before the sessions court wherein the conviction and sentence were confirmed and appeal was dismissed. But when Respondent preferred a Criminal Revision before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh a learned Single Judge (N.Y. Nanumanthappa, J.) heard the revision and disposed it of in the following words :

"Heard both sides.

In the absence of establishment of rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner by the prosecution the Courts below committed mistake in convicting and sentencing the petitioner as aforesaid. Hence the reasoning adopted by the Courts below is arbitrary and unacceptable. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision case is allowed and the convictions and sentences ordered by the Co