Order This revision application is directed against the order taking cognizance dated 1.6.1993 and the order dated 2.6.1994 passed by Shri M. Prasad No. 2, Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, by which the learned Court below disallowed the prayer of discharge of the petitioners in G. R. Case No. 778 of 1993 out of Chirkunda P. S. Case No. 46 of 1993. The petitioners none but the office bears and Directors of M/S. Maithon Ceramic Limited, Mathon Road, Kumardhubi. In the district of Dhnbad, in whose factory deceased Nirmal Paswan was serving dHe died in an accident in the factory premises on 28.2.1993 at 12 noon. He was brought to hospital where he was declared dead. His son Uma Shnkar (Opposite Party No. 2) had filed a first information report alleging that his father died due to negligence on the part of the petitioners Charge sheet was submitted under section 287 304-A of the Indian penal Code. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and proceeded against the petitioners. It is the submission on behalf of the petitioners that there was some defect in the machinery which could be detested after the accident and that the petitioners being the Directors and office bearers of the said Company cannot have any direct complicity with the alleged crime. Practically there is nothing against the petitioners of their involvement or negligence in the alleged accident. For attracting penal provision under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, it must be there that death was due to direct result of rash and negligent act of the accused persons and not of their duty bound liability. There cannot under for attracting penal provision unwed section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, similar is the case with the penal provision of Section 287 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention has referred Kurban Hussain Mohamedalli Rangawalla vs. State of Maharstra (AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1616) There is also allegation of double jeopardy against the accused petitioners as it is an admitted fact that under Factory Act on being moved by the opposite party no. 2 he had been paid compensation for the accidental death of his father. Learned Advocate [appearing for the opposite no. 2 he had been paid compensation for the accidental death of his father. Learned Advocate [appearing for the opposite no. 2 had fairly submitted that he had advised his client not to proceed with to be criminal proceeding after compensation was duly paid the petitioners. It seems that for pressuring for payment of compensation this criminal proceeding was initiated. On the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available or record, practically there cannot be any offence alleged against the accused petitioner nor bundle of facts Stated can attract penal provision as per discussions made above. The learned Court below committed error in proceeding with case against the accused persons. The whole criminal proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 1.6.1993 and the subsequent order dated 2.6.1994 pending before the Court of Sri M. Prasad No. 2, judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, is hereby quashed. Application allowed.