JUDGMENT D.D. Seth, J. - This reference has been made by the learned Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, and arises out of the following circumstances. 2. The applicant, Shah Amin Ahmad, a resident of district Ghazipur, had gone to visit one of his relations, Sri Qazi Qayamuddin Ahmad, in district Mirzapur with whom the applicant's two sons Shakil Ahmad and Aftab Ahmad were staying for their studies. The applicant held a licence for two guns. On 20-5-1968 at about 4.30 p. m. the applicant had gone for shooting and returned back to the house of his relations at about 7 p. in. along with a loaded gun. He felt very thirsty and kept the loaded gun in the verandah of the house of his relation with the intention to keep the gun inside the house immediately after drinking water but, unfortunately, in the meantime one of his sons Aftab Ahmad, who was 7 years old, picked up the loaded gun and fired the same thereby causing the instant death of Chauthi Ram, the servant of Qazi Qayamuddin Ahmad. Soon after the incident the applicant went to the police station and informed the police authorities about the unfortunate occurrence. Thereupon, the police authorities registered a case against the applicant and his son Aftab Ahmad, under section 304-A. IPC and sent up the applicant for trial. 3. The learned Magistrate 1st class framed a charge under section 304-A IPC against the applicant. Against the order of the learned Magistrate framing a charge under section 304-A IPC by his order dated 4-12-1968 the applicant preferred a revision out of which this reference has arisen. The learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, has recommended that the order of the learned Magistrate framing a charge against the applicant under section 304-A IPC should be set aside and the charge against the applicant be quashed so that the applicant may be saved from harassment and unnecessary expense. 4. I have heard Sri S.A. Kazmi, learned counsel in support of the reference and Sri V.P. Goel, the learned brief holder for the State. 4. I have heard Sri S.A. Kazmi, learned counsel in support of the reference and Sri V.P. Goel, the learned brief holder for the State. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended before me that the order of the learned Magistrate framing a charge under section 304-A IPC against the applicant cannot be sustained as the death of the servant of Qazi Qayamuddin had not been caused by the applicant nor was the direct result of any negligent act on his part. Sri V.P. Goel, has, on the other hand, contended that if the applicant had not been negligent and had not kept his loaded gun within the reach of his minor son the accident resulting in the death of servant of Qazi Qayamuddin Ahmad could have been avoided and hence the charge framed by the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified. 5. I have given careful thought to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, and in my opinion, the reference must be accepted. It is true that the applicant had kept the gun within the reach of his minor son but his intention was to take the gun inside the house immediately after drinking water and he could never have imagined that while he was drinking water his young son would pick up the gun and press the trigger resulting in the death of servant. The death of the deceased was, therefore, not the direct or proximate result of any rash or negligent act on the part of the applicant. It may have been a remote consequence of his act of placing the loaded gun within the reach of his minor son but there is nothing to show that the death of the deceased had occurred on account of the rash and negligent act of the applicant. There was no direct nexus between the death of the deceased and the rash and negligent act of the applicant. It was held in Emperor v. Onker Ran Pratap , (1902) 4 Bombay LR 679 that in order to impose criminal liability u/S 304-A, IPC it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused and that act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. In the instant case the death of the deceased servant was due to the unfortunate interference of the young child of the applicant and it cannot be said that it was the applicant who caused the death of the servant by doing any rash or negligent act. The applicant could have hardly imagined that one of his young sons would come and pick up the gun and pull the trigger and hence the death of the servant did not occur as the direct result of the applicant's having left the loaded gun in the verandah and hence there was no direct nexus between the death of the servant and any rash and negligent act of the applicant I agree with the learned Civil and Sessions Judge that the order of the learned Magistrate framing a charge u /S. 304-A IPC against the applicant was not justified and is liable to be set aside. 6. For the reasons mentioned above and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties I accept the reference and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated 4-12-68 framing a charge against the applicant under section 304-A' IPC and quash the charge against the applicant.