N.A Britto, J.- The applicant herein is the brother of the deceased who died in an accident on 7.3.2004, and seeks enhancement of sentence imposed upon the accused.

2. The accident had taken place between the motorcycle driven by his said brother and a KTC bus, a public service vehicle, driven by the accused. The accident took place on Zuari bridge in the process of the accused overtaking the said motorcycle of the deceased. The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 279, IPC to undergo SI for period of fifteen days and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. in default to undergo SI of one month. The learned trial Court also convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 304-A, IPC to undergo SI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. in default to undergo SI of three months. The said judgment has attained finality as no appeal was filed therefrom.

3. Shri J. Godinho, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court against the accused is grossly inadequate and it ought to have been the sentence provided by law i.e. two years under Section 304-A. Therefore, it should have been maximum of two years as provided under Section 304-A, IPC and in support of this submission Shri Godinho has placed reliance on several decisions.

4. The first decision cited is the case of Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 84. That was a case where the Apex Court refused to interfere with the sentence of two years awarded to a truck driver on the ground that he had to maintain a large family and that the owner of the truck had left the family of the accused in the cold. In this judgment, the Apex Court also observed that when a life has been lost and the circumstances of driving are harsh, no compassion could be shown.

5. Reliance has also been placed on the case of State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju where in a case of Section 304-A the sentence imposed under Section 304-A was enhanced to six months RI and fine of Rs. 1000/-. in default the accused was ordered to undergo RI of two months. Reliance is also placed on certain observations made by this Court in the case of Shri Mahadeo Pandurang Phadtare v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 All MR (Cri) 2560. where this Court noticed that the punishment provided, as the law stands today is inadequate, and that it would be appropriate for the Government to consider increasing maximum sentence under Section 304-A, IPC since nowadays a number of people die on roads in India and that is more than the people who die during any epidemic. That was a case where 39 passengers had died and 30 passengers were injured seriously. The Court had also noted that a driver of a public/State Transport Vehicle is supposed to take extra care and caution while driving such a vehicle from one place to another and the responsibility and care which is to be exercised by a driver of the public/State Transport Vehicle is enhanced when we consider the fact that the State of Maharashtra virtually has a State monopoly in respect of transport of its passengers.

6. Reliance is also placed on the case of Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala, AIR 2007 SC 2376, wherein the Apex Court also noted that the punishment provided under Section 304-A is grossly inadequate in view of the increasing number of vehicular accidents resulting in death of large number of innocent persons but further observed that it was for the legislature to provide for an appropriate sentence. That Apex Court also noted that vehicular accidents resulting in deaths and injuries are spiraling.

7. On the other hand. Shri R. Menezes, learned counsel appealing a on behalf of respondent No. 1/accused has, firstly submitted that referring to the case of Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) that the State was required to take measures by providing a course for better driving together with a livelier sense of responsibility with a view to reduce accidents. Learned couns