JUDGMENT 1. - In this petition under Section 482. Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has prayed to quash the charge/substance of accusation under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code read over to the petitioner vide order dated 10-8-1989 and to quash the criminal proceeding in Criminal Case No. 652/88 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that one Ramesh Chandra Saini filed a report at Police Station, Bajai Nagar, Jaipur. On this report Crime No. 233/88 was registered. It was alleged in the report that the, showroom of the petitioner which was under construction in the Lalkothi Shopping Centre, collapsed and its southern portion had sunk in the basement. One Bhagwan Sahai Driver of tractor No. HRG 1363 was hurried under the debris and consequently died. The allegation was that basement was wrongly dug which resulted the collapse of the wall of the showroom. The police after registration of the case investigated the matter and ultimately submitted a charge-sheet under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the collapse of the wall of the showroom was as a result of pure accident and in any case the petitioner cannot be held guilty for negligence. The basement was being dug under the technical advice of the architect and the contractor was doing it, Learned counsel further argued that the parties have also compromised the matter out of court and the legal heirs of the deceased have been adequately compensated. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant does not oppose the prayer of the petitioner in allowing this petition. I perused the record of the trial Court. The statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code were also perused minutely. From the statements of the witnesses it appear that near the showroom of the accused - petitioner one basement was being dug. Tractor No. HRG 1363 was being driven by the deceased Bhagwan Sahai who was working as a driver on it. This tractor belonged to one Ramesh Chand, and it was engaged to lift the sand which was brought out from the basement on digging. The driver of the tractor, namely, Bhagwan Sahai had engaged 2-3 labourers for loading and unloading the sand in the tractor. This tractor belonged to one Ramesh Chand, and it was engaged to lift the sand which was brought out from the basement on digging. The driver of the tractor, namely, Bhagwan Sahai had engaged 2-3 labourers for loading and unloading the sand in the tractor. The basement was being dug by other five or six labourers. It also appears that the owner of the tractor, namely, Ramesh Chand had alarmed the driver Bhagwan Sahai to he away from the basement as there was danger of collapsing of the wall of the showroom. At about 1.00 p.m. in the noon. when the labourers had come out from the basement to take their meals and were sitting under a tree at a distance, driver Bhagwan Salmi had parked the tractor on the western gate of the showroom which the labourers working on the tractor and the owner of the tractor Ramesh Chard were standing. there was a noise. Bhagwan Sahai was sitting at that time on a chair near the gate of the showroom. It was seen that the wall of the showroom collapsed from southern side and the driver Bhagwan Sahai was hurried under the debris. All the witnesses, who were present have given the same story about the incident. Thus, if the prosecution case is taken on the face value, the following facts are disclosed (i) Near the showroom of the petitioner a basement was under construction and its foundation was being dug; (ii) The deceased Bhagwan Sahai was the driver on the tractor which was employed for lifting the sand with the help of the two-three labourers who were engaged by the owner of the tractor; (iii) At 1 p.m. in the noon the southern wall of the showroom collapsed all of sudden which fell on the driver as a result of which he died. The question arises whether on these facts the petitioner can be held guilty for the offence under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code In other words, whether it can be said that the death of Bhagwan Sahai driver was direct result of the rash or negligent act of the petitioner. The question arises whether on these facts the petitioner can be held guilty for the offence under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code In other words, whether it can be said that the death of Bhagwan Sahai driver was direct result of the rash or negligent act of the petitioner. Section 304A, Indian Penal Code runs as under : "Section 304A Causing death by negligence 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." 5. A bare reading of Section 304A, Indian Penal Code makes it clear that what it requires is causing of death by doing any rash and negligent act, which means that the death must be direct or proximate result of the rash and negligent act. The basement was being dug by the labourers. It is true that they should have been vigilant and steps should have been taken by them to prevent the collapse of the adjoining wall of the showroom. But the question is whether the owner who was constructing the basement and who was not digging the foundation can be held responsible for the act so as to make him liable under Section 304A Indian Penal Code. I am of the view that he cannot be held criminally liable. To impose criminal liability under s. 304A, Indian Penal Code it is necessary that the death should be the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused and that act must be proximate and efficient cause without the interruption of another's negligence. It must be causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non. This view has been followed by the various High Courts in India and has been affirmed by the Apex Court of the country in Kurban Hussain Mohammedan Rangawalla v. Stare of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 1616 . 6. Therefore, the mere fact that the wall of the showroom of the petitioner collapsed causing the death of Bhagwan Sahai would not be enough to make the petitioner liable under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code. The death of Bhagwan Sahai, in my opinion, was no directly a result of a rash or negligent act on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the mere fact that the wall of the showroom of the petitioner collapsed causing the death of Bhagwan Sahai would not be enough to make the petitioner liable under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code. The death of Bhagwan Sahai, in my opinion, was no directly a result of a rash or negligent act on the part of the petitioner. As already stated earlier, the foundation was being dug by the labourers and if they were negligent to some extent, the petitioner could not be criminally held liable for their act. 7. Consequently, the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code deserves to be quashed. 8. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The order of the trial Court dated 10-8-1989 is hereby set aside and criminal proceedings under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code against the petitioner are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******