JUDGMENT 1. - In the present revision petition. the accused petitioners challenged the order dated 9-2-1993 of Additional Sessions Judge. Hindaun City in Case No. 26/92 whereby he held that prima facie the offence punishable under S. 20204, IPC was made out against the petitioners and consequently the charge was framed 2. Crime No. 370/91 under S. 2/3- IPC was registered at Police Station, Hindaun on a written report made by Dinesh Chand s/o Bhagwat Prasad The incident was narrated in the report. According to it, the complainant party bad made a contract with the petitioners to purchase 50 quintal oil and it was to be weighed on Tuesday. However, the delivery of the oil was not taken on Tuesday as the sellers were intimated on Mon-day that the delivery shall be taken on Wednesday. It is alleged that on Wednesday the informant went to take the delivery with three bullock carts but the accused persons declined to make the delivery till the payment of the price of oil was made. It is stated that thereafter they agreed and delivery was given on surety furnished by them and the oil was brought by the purchaser complainant. On the same day the petitioners Brahma Prakash and Gopal came to the shop of the complainant at I p.m. and asked to make the payment of the price at 6 p.m. The story further goes that at 6 p m. all the three accused went to the shop of the complainant where his father Bhagwat Prasad was sitting on a 'Takhat' and the complainant was going to take bath. He saw that all the three persons caught the collar of Bhagwat Prasad and pushed him on the ground and gave fist blows. The doctor was called who declared Bhagwat Prasad as dead. 3. The dead body of Bhagwat Prasad was postmortem by a Board of Doctors The doctors found no marks of external injuries on his body. The tongue was not protruded. All the limbs of the body were found normal/healthy In the opinion of the doctors the cause of death was described as under: "In our opinion patient died of cardiac arrest following recent inferior wall myocardia infarction cardioginic shock and death." 4. The tongue was not protruded. All the limbs of the body were found normal/healthy In the opinion of the doctors the cause of death was described as under: "In our opinion patient died of cardiac arrest following recent inferior wall myocardia infarction cardioginic shock and death." 4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even if the prosecution case is taken on its face value, the act of the petitioners does not fall within the definition of murder given in S. 299 and 300 IPC. It was argued that as per the prosecution case there was no previous enmity and the petitioners had no intention to commit murder or had the knowledge that their act was likely to cause the death of the deceased Counsel, contended that as per the case of the prosecution the accused-petitioners went to realise the price of the goods sold by them and fist blows were given to Bhagwat Prasad and he also fell down due to the push given by the petitioners. The act of the petitioners did not suggest that they could have the knowledge that their act was likely to cause death. Learned counsel drew my attention to Illustration (a) of S. 211, Cr. PC which reads as under: "A is charged with the murder of B. This is equivalent to a statement that A's act fell within the definition of murder given in Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code; that it did not fall within any of the general exceptions of the said Code; and that it did not fall within any of the five exceptions to section 300, or that, if it did fall within Exception 1, one or other of the three provisions to that exception applied to it." He also referred Sections 299 and 300 IPC. Reliance was also placed on Nanchhu Ram & Smt. Mani v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 PCC 87. . and Phool Singh v. State, 1982 Cr. LR (Raj) 72 . 5. I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions. I have minutely perused the entire material on the record. A perusal of postmortem report shows that the deceased Bhagwat Prasad did not sustain any external injury. The cause of death was given as cardial arrest. . and Phool Singh v. State, 1982 Cr. LR (Raj) 72 . 5. I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions. I have minutely perused the entire material on the record. A perusal of postmortem report shows that the deceased Bhagwat Prasad did not sustain any external injury. The cause of death was given as cardial arrest. The incident took place all of a sudden as the accused petitioners had come to demand the price of the goods supplied by them. There was no previous enmity. The accused were empty handed and there is general allegation that they gave fist blows and by their push the deceased fell down on the ground from the 'Takhat' The question for decision is whether on these facts a charge under S. 302 IPC could be framed against the petitioners. 6. It cannot be disputed that charge under S. 302, IPC could be framed only if the act of the petitioner fell within the definition of murder given in Sections 299 and 300, IPC. S 299, IPC defines culpable homicide which reads as under : "Culpable homicide - Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to canse death commits the offence of culpable homicide." Section 300, IPC defines when culpable homicide is murder. To constitute culpable homicide, death must be caused by the act of the accused and it should be accompanied with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death. From the un-controverted facts of the prosecution it cannot be inferred that the petitioners had intended to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death or they had the knowledge that their act was likely to cause death. Further there is no material on the record that the death of Bhagwat Prasad was due :o the act of the petitioners. As already stated earlier no external injury was found on any part of the deceased and the death was due to cardiac arrest Which may be for so many reasons. Further there is no material on the record that the death of Bhagwat Prasad was due :o the act of the petitioners. As already stated earlier no external injury was found on any part of the deceased and the death was due to cardiac arrest Which may be for so many reasons. The cardiac arrest was due to the act of the petitioners is also missing on the record. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has completely missed this aspect of the case and without application of mind simply observed that prima facie case under S. 302/34, IPC was made out against the petitioners. He did not address as to how the prima facie case under S. 302/34, IPC was made out against the petitioners. From a perusal of S. 211, Cr.P.C. it is also clear that a charge under S. 302, IPC can be framed if the act of the accused fell within the definition of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. The prosecution has to material on record at pre-charge stage for framing charge under S. 302, IPC. In the absence of the requisite material, the charge under S. 302, IPC cannot be framed against the petitioners. 7. Consequently, revision petition is allowed. Charge framed under S. 302, IPC is quashed. Learned Additional Session Judge is directed to proceed under S. 228(a), Cr.P.C. to frame charge under S. 323, IPC against the petitioners and transfer the case for trail to the competent court. As the injury was not found to be grievous even charge under S. 325, IPC cannot be framed.The revision petition stands decided as indicated above.Revision allowed. *******