1. - This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') is directed against the judgment dated 15.2.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road (for short, 'the Appellate Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2005, by which the Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of petitioner for the offence under Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, dismissed the appeal against the conviction and sentence for the offences under Secs. 279, 304-A IPC and confirmed the judgment and order dated 16.12.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Pindwara (for short, 'the Trial Court') whereby the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 279 and 304-A, IPC and sentenced him to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 IPC, two years simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.

2. The facts of the case, in a nut shell, are that on 23.12.1999, PW 8 Thana Ram lodged FIR Ex.P/1 with Police Station, Pindwara, stating therein that when his nephew Ravindra S/o Chhagan Lal, aged about 2 years, was playing with his niece Vimla, on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the petitioner, his nephew Ravindra sustained serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to those injuries. On this report, the investigation ensued and after investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. The Trial Court, on conclusion of trial, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as noticed-Above. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the conviction and sentence for the offences under Secs. 279 and 304-A IPC was dismissed by the Appellate Court; however, the Appellate Court acquitted Accused-Petitioner of the offence under Section 3/81 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence this revision petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. I have carefully gone through the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below as also the record of the case.

4. At the very out set, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not challenge his conviction. His contention is that the parties have arrived at a compromise and have settled the matter amicably, therefore, the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.

5. I have carefully gone through the judgments and order passed by the Courts below. There is concurrent finding of the Courts below holding the petitioner guilty of the aforesaid offences. Both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence in right perspective and I find no error, illegality, or perversity in the judgments and orders impugned, as such the learned counsel is right in not challenging the judgment so far as conviction is concerned.

6. So far as question of sentence is concerned, on 16.3.2005, Shri Chhagan Lal, the father of the deceased and the petitioner have arrived at a compromise, which has been verified by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The parties have been identified by their respective counsel. As per the provisions of Section 320 of the Code, the offences punishable under Secs. 279 and 304-A, IPC are not compoundable. In Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu, JT 2001 (Suppl 2) SC 396 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that contributory negligence is not a permissible defence, but a factor which affects the quantum of sentence. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-A, IPC, reduced the sentence to three months simple imprisonment, in the instant case, Chhagan Lai, who is father of deceased Ravindra, has settled the matter and arrived at a compromise with the petitioner and keeping in view the fact that the Accused - Petitioner is in jail since 15.2.2005 and has already undergone t