JUDGMENT : AIKMAN, J. This is an application for the revision of an order of a Magistrate of the first class convicting the applicant, Abdus Sattar, of an offence punishable under section 286 of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 25. That section provides for the punishment of any person who does any act with an explosive substance so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person, or who knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any explosive substance in his possession as is sufficient to guard against probable danger to human life from that substance. 2. It appears that the applicant was out shooting with some friends, and that a pellet from his gun lodged in the thigh of one Birkhi who was at work in the corner of his field. According to the evidence for the prosecution the accused at once went up and gave his name and address. In my opinion, section 286 was never intended to apply to a case like this. The learned Assistant Government Advocate contends that the case falls within the purview of section 337, which provides punishment for any person who causes hurt by doing any act so negligently or so rashly as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, and suggests that the finding should be altered to one under that section. I think that if any section in the Penal Code, 1860 were applicable to the facts of the present case, it would be section 337. But in my judgment to sustain a conviction under that section it is necessary for the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the accused has been guilty of culpable rashness or negligence. I can find nothing on the record to show that the prosecution established that there was on the part of the accused any such rashness or negligence. The learned Magistrate appears to consider that his finding that the accused fired the gun and that the complainant, Birkhi, was injured thereby, coupled with the fact that in the month of July people are out working in their fields, was sufficient to establish the accused's guilt. He says that the case is not one of a serious nature. The learned Magistrate appears to consider that his finding that the accused fired the gun and that the complainant, Birkhi, was injured thereby, coupled with the fact that in the month of July people are out working in their fields, was sufficient to establish the accused's guilt. He says that the case is not one of a serious nature. There is nothing on the record to show at what distance the accused was from the complainant when he fired or even that the complainant was in the direct line of fire. For aught we know the complainant may have been injured by a stray pellet accidentally deflected from its course. I allow the application. I quash the conviction under section 286 of the Penal Code, 1860 and the sentence passed thereon, and direct that the fine, if paid, be refunded.