M. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision application is di rected against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87. ( 2 ) SHRI Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304-B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code can not be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. ( 3 ) IT is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was commit ted. ( 4 ) IN the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304-B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amend ment of the Act which came into force w. e. f. 9-11- 86 and it has no retrospective effect. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304-B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat 1991 Cri LJ 3135 : AIR 1991 SC 2173 . ( 6 ) FOR the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304-B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed. ( 7 ) IT is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them. Petition allowed. .