JUDGMENT A. K. Sengupta, J.: This revisional application is directed against the proceeding initiated against the petitioners under s. 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner no. 1 is the Deputy General Manager, Usha Fan Industries looking after Administrative Department and Sales Coordination Department. The petitioner no. 2 is the Supervisor of Usha Fan Industries in Ceiling Fan Assembly and the petitioner no. 3 is the General Manager of Usha Fan Industries, a unit of Messrs. Jay Engineering Works Limited. 2. The facts leading to this revisional application are that one Bhasa Ranjan Das used to work in Ceiling Fan Division of Usha Fan Industries (hereinafter referred to as the said Industries) and he died on 2nd September 1982 while he was on duty. On 15th September 1982 at about 9-35 P.M. Amal Kanti Biswas, Inspector-in-Charge of Regent Park Police Station lodged an information with the said Police Station against the petitioner no.1 and 2 alleging commission of an offence under s. 304A of the Indian Panel Code. In the said First Information Report it was, inter alia, alleged that the deceased Bhasa Ranjan Das was an employee of Ceiling Fan Assembly of the said Industries and he was entrusted with the job of testing of Starters of Ceiling Fans by passing electric current. The deceased Bhasa Ranjan Das expired while performing his duty to electrocution on 2nd September 1982 at 17-45 hours. On receipt of the said First Information Report the police took up investigation of the case and on completion thereof submitted a charge sheet against the petitioners and others under s. 304A of the Indian Penal Code. This has been impugned in the revisional application. 3. Mr. Dutt, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has contended that the avernments in the First Information Report, the statement of witnesses under s. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and other materials collected during investigation do not even prima facie make out an offence under s. 304A of the Indian Penal Code against any of the petitioners. There is no allegation that the death of deceased Bhasa Ranjan Das was the direct result of any act or omission on the part of the petitioners. On the contrary the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted on the basis of the allegation that they are officers of the company. 4. This contention has substance. There is no allegation that the death of deceased Bhasa Ranjan Das was the direct result of any act or omission on the part of the petitioners. On the contrary the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted on the basis of the allegation that they are officers of the company. 4. This contention has substance. What s.304A of the Indian Penal Code requires is causing of death by doing any rash or negligent act, and this means that death must be the direct or proximate result of the rash or negligent act. In Kurban Hussein Mohammmedali Rangawalla v. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1956 SC 1616 Supreme Court quoted with approval the interpretation placed on s. 304A made by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Emperor v. Onkar Rampratap 4 Bom. LR 679. There Sir Lawrence Jenkins observed as follows: "To impose criminal liability under s. 304A Indian Penal Code 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 he the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. It must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the cause sine qua non." In Kurban Hussain Mohammedali Rangwalla (supra) the accused who had manufactured wet paints without a licence was acquitted of the charge under s. 304A because it was held that the mere fact that he allowed the burners to be used in the same room in which turpentine and varnish were stored, even though it would be a negligent act, would not be enough to make him liable under s. 304A for the fire which broke out. The cause of the fire was not merely the presence of the burners within the room in which Varnish and turpentine were stored, though the circumstance was indirectly responsible for the fire which broke out but was also due to the overflowing of forth out of the barrels. Supreme Court observed : "The death in this case was, therefore, in our opinion not directly the result of a rash or negligent act on the part of the appellant and was not the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. The appellant must, therefore, be acquitted of the offence under s. 304A." 5. Supreme Court observed : "The death in this case was, therefore, in our opinion not directly the result of a rash or negligent act on the part of the appellant and was not the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. The appellant must, therefore, be acquitted of the offence under s. 304A." 5. Our attention has been drawn to a Bench decision of this Court in Dr. A. K. Mitra v. Nanak Chand Rampuria & State (Criminal Revision No. 160 of 1984), where one of us was a party. In that case Pradeep Kr. Rampuria, the only son of opposite party no. 1 Shri Nanak Chand Rampuria, who was suffering from dental troubles was admitted to the Believue Clinic on 15-5-77 for a minor operation. Unfortunately shortly after the operation Pradeep died due to cardiac arrest as a result of tracheal aspiration. On October 15, 1977 that is, about 5 months after the occurrence, opposite party no. 1 Manik Chand Rampuria filed a petition of complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, under ss. 304A/114, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners alleging that on May 15, 1977 the petitioners caused the death of Pradeep Kumar Rampuria by rash and negligent act in the matter of his operation at the operation theatre of the Believue Clinic by aiding and abetting each other in the commission of the said offence. There this Court applied the principles laid down in Kurban Hussain Mohammedali Rangwalla (supra) and held that the petitioner was not guilty of any rash or negligent act resulting in the death of the deceased. 6. 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 a person may be guilty under s. 304A the rash or negligent act should be direct or proximate cause of the death. Reference may be made to the decision in the case of Ambalal D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1972 SC 1150 . There the chemist was charged under s. 304A for non-compliance with the provisions of the Drugs Rules as made under the Drugs Act for giving batch number to every lot of bottles containing preparation of glucese in normal seline. There the chemist was charged under s. 304A for non-compliance with the provisions of the Drugs Rules as made under the Drugs Act for giving batch number to every lot of bottles containing preparation of glucese in normal seline. Supreme Court held that this act did not by itself make the act of chemist causa causana of the death of persons who were injected with those preparatichs when it was not only the duty of the Chief Analyst to test the materials before they were issued to the injection department but also to test 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 death nor could his act be declared to be grossly rash and negligent. 7. In our view, no materials have been disclosed in the F.I.R. which would prima facie indicate that any act of the petitioners was the direct cause of the death of the workman. On the other hand, over the self-same incident case, being Case No. 82 of 1983 was instituted against the Usha Fan Industries, Tapan Sen Gupta, Electrical Maintenance Engineer of the said Industries and Sudarshan Chandra Das, Works Manager, Fan Assembly of the said Industries, for alleged violation of provisions of Electricity Act and the Rule-framed thereunder. The averments in the said petition will unmistakably show that the present petitioners had no connection whatsoever with the alleged incident and as such no complaint was made against them in the said case. It appears from the said complaint that the Chief Electrical Inspector of the Government of West Bengal upon enquiry observed that the persons named in the said complaint were responsible for committing breaches of the rules. No materials have been placed before the Court to show that ingredients under s. 304A of the Indian Penal Code have at least prima facie been satisfied in this case. Apart from the fact that the accused were at the material time Administrative Manager, Supervisor and General Manager, respectively there is no averment that the death of the workmen was the direct result of any rash or any negligent act of the accused and it was the causa causana. 8. Apart from the fact that the accused were at the material time Administrative Manager, Supervisor and General Manager, respectively there is no averment that the death of the workmen was the direct result of any rash or any negligent act of the accused and it was the causa causana. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners under s. 304A of the Indian Penal Code will be an abuse of the process of the court and, accordingly proceedings against the petitioners are quashed. Rule is therefore made absolute. J. N. Hore. J.: I agree. Rule made absolute; proceeding quashed.