( 1 ) THE respondent herein Bhiya Husein Koreja of Nani Chirai was tried in summary case No. 672/78 by the learned judicial Magistrate First Class Anjar under the charge that on 10-8-78 he had driven a truck bearing No. GTY 3725 in a rash and negligent manner on account of which he caused the death of one Vijay Amratlal and was consequently charged for having committed the offences under sections 279 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 116 and 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It appears that the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him in consequence of which the trial had commenced. Thereafter the prosecution had examined witness Madhusudan Jayantilal (P. W. 1) who supported the Prosecution case.

( 2 ) MADHUSUDAN Jayantilal was studying in the 8th standard. He deposed that on 10-8-1978 he was returning from the school in the evening and at that time he was accompanied by his costudent deceased Vijay Amratlal. The witness was riding the cycle and the deceased Vijay Amratlal had sat on the pillion but he did not find himself comfortable on the pillion. Therefore he got down. The witness was then riding the cycle slowly and deceased Vijay Amratlal was walking by the side of the cycle. The witness then deposed the way in which Vijay came to be injured. He deposed that when they were near Savasaur Naka truck No. GTY 3725 rushed in front of them having been driven in a reckless manner by the accused. Both of them become nervous. The truck dashed against both of them as a result of which the witness was thrown by the side and deceased Vijay was actually run over. The witness was badly injured on his right hand but Vijay was more badly injured in consequence of which he died. There was no cross examination of this witness by the learned Advocate Mr. Bayad who represented him in the trial Court. It further appears from the record of the case that the complaint was given by the same Madhusudan Jayantilal and it is to be found at Exh. 18.

( 3 ) AFTER the evidence of P. W. 1 was recorded it transpires the record of the case that the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the accused and the accused pleaded guilty. The accused also filed his written statement (Exh. 19) wherein also he pleaded guilty and prayed for mercy. The learned Magistrate on the aforesaid evidence convicted the accused under sections 279 337 and 304a of the Indian Penal Code and also under secs. 116 and 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 25/for each of the aforesaid offences. He was fined totally to the extent of Rs. 125/and in default of payment of fine he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three days for each of the offences. The order of the learned Magistrate was dated 19

( 4 ) AGAINST this order of conviction and sentence the State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal wherein it is submitted that looking to the gravity of the offence committed by the accused the sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate is inadequate and hence a prayer is made for the enhancement of the sentence.

( 5 ) AT the time of the hearing of the appeal Mr. Y. S. Mankad the learned Advocate for the accused filed an affidavit of the accused dated 28-3-1980. It is submitted by the accused in the affidavit that he had not pleaded guilty and the trial against him had proceeded but thereafter the learned Magistrate induced him to make a plea of guilty under the inducement that if he pleaded guilty lenient punishment would be imposed on him. The complainant side had also told him to plead guilty because they wished that the trial should result into conviction which conviction would be useful to them in the proceedings for compensation which were pending before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The accused further submits that he is a poor man and did not know the intricacies of law. He was losing his wages because