KUDAL, J—M/s. Shriram Fertilizers & Chemicals, Kota gave a contract to M/s. Kota Refractories, Kota for repairing the boiler. At about 2.30 p.m. on 19th February 1977, Iqbal Mohd. entered the boiler to repair refractories around the main hole, but he suddenly fell unconscious and could not even cry out. This was also noticed by the Contractor G. D. Patel, who- immediately instructed his workers to help Iqbal Mohd. Hira had put his head inside the main hole to pull out the unconscious worker Iqbal Mohd. but he himself became unconscious and was removed by another worker named Bhola Ram, but Bhola Ram also became unconscious when he put his head inside the main hole pull out the unconscious workers. Iqbal Mohd. was removed to the hospital where he was declared dead. After investigation the police registered a case under sec. 304-A, IPC against Shri B.S. Garud, Shri S.K. Agarwal,Shri S.P. Jolly, Shri Harbinder Singh, Shri S. S. Bhargava and S. M. Sibbal. The accused-petitioners moved an application under sec. 258, Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Magistrate who rejected the same on 4th March, 1978.. The contention of the accused-petitioner is that there is absolutely no case against them and that taking the prosecution evidence at its best, no case under sec. 304-A, IPC is made out. Under such circumstances, it is contended that the prosecution of the present nature under sec. 304-A, IPC amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court and that this Court should invoke its inherent powers in quashing the proceedings which have been initiated against the accused-petitioners, in which there is no legal evidence against them. Two petitions under sec. 482, Cr. P. C, 1973 have been filed before this Court. S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 46 of 1978 is on behalf of Dr. B. S. Garud and Shri S.M. Sibbal, while the Criminal Misc. Application No. 48 of 1978, is on behalf of Shri S.B. Bhargava, Shri S.K. Agarwal, Shri S. P. Jolly and .Shri Harbinder Singh. 2. As these two petitions arise out of the same incident and as the facts and points of law involved in the case are common, they are being disposed of by this single order. 3. It was contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that the contract for Rs. 2. As these two petitions arise out of the same incident and as the facts and points of law involved in the case are common, they are being disposed of by this single order. 3. It was contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that the contract for Rs. 15,000/- was given to the Kota Refractories, Kota to carry out the repairs of primary reformer, H. P. boiler and connected pipelines, refractories line etc. on 11th February, 1977. The terms and conditions on which the contract was given were also embodied therein. Clause (9) of the terms and conditions related to accident, which reads as under— "You will be solely responsible for any accident in which you or your men or your equipment may be involved during the execution of contract, on account of any reasons whatsoever. It will be obligatory on your part, to have those of your employees covered by the ESI 1948, insured against risk under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 etc. You will also ensure in order to avoid accident that your men come to work in tight fitting cloths where it may be necessary and they are provided with requisite safety equipment." 4. It has been contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that the plant was shut down on 11th February, 1977. Before opening any equipment in the reformer area the whole system even primary reformer, secondary reformer and waste heat boiler was purged for four hours with air after opening the main holes of the waste heat boiler on 12th February, 1977. The gas sample was tested and was found to be normal, i.e. not containing any dangerous fume. It was further contended that the work of the boiler lasted for a few days. It is said that on the evening of 18th February, 1977, Shri S.M. Sibbal, Additional Production Manager, personally entered into the waste heat boiler from the main hole on the northern side, and remained inside for about three hours. Thereafter, also he is reported to have entered into the boiler once or twice. It was also contended that the primary reformer, secondary reformer and waste heat boiler is a combined unit and can be purged only together and not separa-tely. Thereafter, also he is reported to have entered into the boiler once or twice. It was also contended that the primary reformer, secondary reformer and waste heat boiler is a combined unit and can be purged only together and not separa-tely. It was also contended that on 12th February, 1977, the heat boiler was cooled after opening both the main holes and the gases which were present in the boiler on 13th February, 1977 were tested. The test did not indicate the presence of carbon monoxite or any other poisonous gas. It was also contended that Dr. B.S. Garud and Shri S. M. Sibbal were not even present at the time of the occurrence. Dr. Garud is said to be at Bombay on that day. 5. On behalf of the accused-petitioners, it has been contended that if they are guilty of any contravention of the provisions of the Factory Act and the rules made thereunder, or the Indian Boiler Act and the rules made thereunder, they would be liable for the same, and the prosecution has already been launched against them. It was also strenuously contended that merely because there has been some alleged contravention of the provisions of the Factory Act or the Indian Boiler Act or the rules framed under these Acts, a case under Section 304-A, IPC cannot be sustained. It was also contended that in order to sustain a case under Section 304-A, IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the actions of the accused persons were the case of the death of Iqbal Mohd. It was also contended that the prosecution must establish causa causans, and not causa sine qua non. It was also contended that the post-mortem report of Iqbal Mohd stated the cause of death due to asphyxia due to asphyxiant gas. Doubtful of carbon monoxide poisoning. Definite opinion can be given after receipt of chemical examination report. It was further contended that the Chemical Examiners report dated 23rd June, 1977 was not produced by the prosecution till the orders of this Court dated 7th Nove., 1978. The Chemical Examiners report states that all the four blood samples under items C, D, E & F are negative for carbon monoxide. It further states that A to F are negative for arsenic, antimony, mercury, opium, dhatura barbiturates and ammonia. The Chemical Examiners report states that all the four blood samples under items C, D, E & F are negative for carbon monoxide. It further states that A to F are negative for arsenic, antimony, mercury, opium, dhatura barbiturates and ammonia. It was further contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that the statement of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161, Cr. P. C. may be taken on its face value, then too no cause under Section 304-A IPC is made out. It was, therefore, contended that the prosecution under Section 304-A, IPC is wholly uncalled for and amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and deserves to be quashed in the interests of justice. 6. On behalf of the prosecution, it has been contended that the accused persons are holding important posts in the Shriram Chemical Industries, Kota and have acted in a rash and negligent manner in not complying with the & full requirements which the Factory Act and the Indian Boiler Act and the rules framed thereunder called upon them to do. It was further contended that when on 19th February, 1977, one man hole was closed, then the accused persons or some responsible Officers should have been present there and in not deputing any responsible Officer there, the accused persons have acted rashly and negligently resulting in the death of the worker Iqbal Mohd. It was also contended that if the presence of the gases were checked and tested on 13th February, 1977, it cannot be said that no gases were present on 19th February, 1977, when Iqbal Mohd. was repairing the boiler. It was also contended that the application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is at this stage, premature inasmuch as that the prosecution has not yet led evidence, It was, therefore, contended that full opportunity should be given to the prosecution to establish its case. It was contended that Iqbal Mohd has lost his life and the responsible Officers of the factory cannot escape from the liability of the death of Iqbal Mohd which accrued due to rash and negligent act of the accused persons. 7. In rejoinder, it was contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that the death must be the direct result of the actions of the accused persons. It was also contended that Iqbal Mohd. 7. In rejoinder, it was contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that the death must be the direct result of the actions of the accused persons. It was also contended that Iqbal Mohd. was not employed in the Shriram Chemical Industries, Kota, but he was an employee of the contractor, M/s Kota Refractories, Kota, and condition No. 9 of the terms and conditions of the contract completely absolve the management of the Shriram Chemical Industries, Kota. 8. Respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused. 9. These two applications are directed against the challan under sec. 304-A, IPC, and have nothing to do with the prosecution of the accused-petitioners either under the Factory Act or under the Indian Boiler Act read with the rules framed under the respective acts. 10. Sec. 304-A, IPC provides that whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Under this section death should have been the direct result of the rash and negligent act of the accused and that act must have been the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of anothers negligence. It must have been the causa causans. It is not enough that it may have been causa sine qua non. This view finds support in (1902) 4 Bombay Law Reports, 679. This view was also followed in State of Bombay vs. Chinubhai Haridas Sheth (1). The matter came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Mohd. Bangawalla vs. Maharashtra State (2), wherein it was held that death must be the direct result of the rash and negligent act of the accused and the act must be efficient cause without intervention of anothers negligence. It must be the causa causans. It is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non (4 Bom. Law Report 679 was followed). It must be the causa causans. It is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non (4 Bom. Law Report 679 was followed). Reliance was also placed on A. D. Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat(3), wherein it was held as under:— "In a prosecution for an offence under Sec. 304-A, the mere fact that an accused contravenes certain rules or regulations in the doing of an act which causes death of another, does not establish that the death was the result of a rash or negligent act or that any such act was the proximate and efficient cause of the death. The act causing the deaths "must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non. Thus mere non-compliance with the provisions of the Drugs Rules as made under the Drugs Act by a Chemist of a chemical company for giving a batch number of every lot of bottles containing preparation of glucose in normal saline did not by itself make the act of Chemist causa causans of the death of persons who were injected with those preparations when it was not only the duty of the Chief Analyst to the test materials before they were issued to the injection department but also to test the solution in such a way as would trace the lead nitrate in the solution which resulted in the death of the persons. Hence, the negligence of the Chemist in giving one batch number to several lots could not by itself be said to be the direct cause of the deaths nor could his act be declared to be grossly rash and negligent." 11. On behalf of the State, reliance was placed on Maheshwari Oil Mill vs. State of Bihar (4) in which it has been held that the High Court will not enter into inquiry of disputed facts and thereafter hold in favour of the accused. On behalf of the State, reliance was placed on Maheshwari Oil Mill vs. State of Bihar (4) in which it has been held that the High Court will not enter into inquiry of disputed facts and thereafter hold in favour of the accused. In Amar Chand vs. Shanti Bose (5), wherein it was held that where the accused moved the High Court at the time when the trial was almost coming to a close and what remained to be done was the examination of two prosecution and one Court witnesses and the High Court quashed the charge and the entire proceedings on the grounds that the complainant supressed material facts and that the evidence on record did not establish the alleged offence, the order was liable to be set aside. 12. Reliance was placed on State of Karnataka vs. Muniswami (6), in which it has been held as under : — "For the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused the Court possesses, comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on the record, if unrebutted, is such on the basis of which a conviction can be said reasonably to be possible. "Held that in the instant case there was no material on the record on the basis of which any tribunal could reasonably come to the conclusion that the accused were in any manner connected with the incident leading to the prosecution. The High Court was therefore justified in holding that for meeting the ends of justice the proceedings against the rest of the accused ought to be quashed." 13. In R. P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab (7), it was held that where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they were taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or rot. 14. Carbon monoxide is a colourless, poisonous gas, CO., formed by burning carbon with a scanty supply of Oxygen, It causes asphiyxation by combining irrevarsibly with the blood hemoglobin. 14. Carbon monoxide is a colourless, poisonous gas, CO., formed by burning carbon with a scanty supply of Oxygen, It causes asphiyxation by combining irrevarsibly with the blood hemoglobin. When carbon is burnt and Oxygen is available in adequate quantity CO is formed; but where the Oxygen supply is scanty CO is formed which is deadly poisonous gas. The work on the boiler started on 11th February. 1977. On 13th February, 1977 the boiler was checked for gases after being cooled. Traces of carbon monoxide were not found. Air with adequate quantity of Oxygen was found. The work continued upto 19th February, 1977, till then no untoward incident happened. On 19th February, 1977, one man hole of the waste heat boiler was closed. At about 2.30 p.m. when Iqbal Mohd entered the boiler and he became unconscious and died. The other workers who wanted to assist him also fell unconscious. The statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. have been thoroughly perused. If these statements are taken on their face value without any rebuttal, then too, it is difficult to hold that the death of Iqbal Mohd was caused because of any action of the accused persons. The contract was given to M/s. Kota Refractories, Kota. Iqbal Mohd was an employee of this contractors firm. According to the term 9 of the terms and conditions the contractor was solely responsible. Dr. B. S Garud and Shri S. M. Sibbal were not even in Kota on the day of the incident, i.e. on 19th February, 1977. The post-mortem report of Iqbal Mohd indicates that he died of asphyxia. The Medical Officer doubted the poisoning due to presence of carbon monoxide. He opined that the Chemical examination report could be the basis of a definite finding. The Superintendent of Police had sent these articles to the Chemical Examiner. Vide report dated 23rd June, 1977, the Chemical Examiner opined that the articles C to F were negative for carbon monoxide and that all these articles A to F were negative for arsenic, antimony, mercury, opium, dhatura, barbiturates and ammonia. The Inspector of Factories and Boilers, Kota got the gases of the boiler analysed on 13th February; 1977 at 10.10 a.m. The Oxygen was found to be 20.33%, Co2 0.06%. Nitrogen was the balance and Co was not traceable. Having gone through the entire statements of the witnesses under sec. The Inspector of Factories and Boilers, Kota got the gases of the boiler analysed on 13th February; 1977 at 10.10 a.m. The Oxygen was found to be 20.33%, Co2 0.06%. Nitrogen was the balance and Co was not traceable. Having gone through the entire statements of the witnesses under sec. 161, Cr.P.C, and taking those statements as they are i.e. without any rebuttal, it is exceedingly difficult to hold that any case under Section 304-A, IPC is made out against the accused-pstitioners. As has been held in Mohd. Bangawala vs. Maharashtra State (2), the act of causing death must be the causa causans. It is not enough that it may have been causa sine qua non. This legal position has been affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court in various rulings some of which have been quoted above. In Madhu Limiye vs. State of Maharshtra(8) it has been held that (1) that the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party; (2) that it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice (3); that it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. The power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. being the inherent power should be exercised very speringly, but where the proceedings initiated appear to be vexatious or without any legal evidence, or as beings without jurisdiction the High Court should be decline to exercise this power. The desirability of quashing the criminal proceedings of the nature referred to above enhances the ends of justice and saves the people from vexatious prosecutions. 15. Having given my most anxious consideration to the entire facts and circumstances on record, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution evidence, even if unrebutted, is of such a nature, that on the basis of which, a conviction cannot reasonably be possible. Under these circumstances, this Court comes to the conclusion that the allowing of the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court, and that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. 16. Under these circumstances, this Court comes to the conclusion that the allowing of the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court, and that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. 16. For the reasons stated above, these petitions are allowed and the criminal prosecution under Section 304-A, IPC against the accused-petitioners is hereby quashed. 17. Before parting with this order, it must be made clear that this order of quashing the proceedings under Section 304-A, IPC will not in any way affect the prosecutions which are being launched or may be launched against the accused-petitioners under the Indian Boiler Act or the Factory Act. Those prosecutions shall proceed and shall be determined on merits. 18. A copy of this order shall be placed on file of each petition.