( 1 ) DELAY condoned.

( 2 ) APPLICATION for exemption from surrendering is refused.

( 3 ) WE heard learned counsel at considerable length, particularly because of a grievance that the High Court did not hear his counsel. The petitioner is found to have committed the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian penal Code on the allegation that he drove a bus rashly and negligently with 41 passengers therein and while crossing a bridge the bus fell into the nearby canal and all the passengers died. Learned counsel submits that prosecution has not proved the negligence on the part of the driver.

( 4 ) IT is admitted that the petitioner himself was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. It is also admitted that bus was driven over a bridge and then it fell into canal. In such a situation the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur comes into play and the burden shifts on to the man who was in control of the automobile to establish that the accident did not happen on account of any negligence on his part. He did not succeed in showing that the accident happened due to causes other than negligence on his part.

( 5 ) WE have stated the above aspects only in the wake of the grievance expressed by t