JUDGMENT S.K. Kulshrestha, J. 1. This revision has been filed against the order dated 7.4.1992 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Class I, Burhanpur passed in Criminal Case No. 2481/91 by which, the respondent was discharged of the offence Under Section 176 of the IPC. 2. The respondent was prosecuted for an offence under Section 176 of the IPC on the ground that he did not give information about the offence of attempted murder in which Ms. Sangita received burn injury and of which later, Criminal Case No. 192/91 under Sections 498A, 307/34, IPC and under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered at the police station. 3. From the perusal of the order dated 7.4.1992 of the learned Magistrate, it is clear that the record produced by the police in support of its case, itself indicated that the accused Prem Kumar had sent information in writing to the doctor who was a public servant. In this view of the matter, the learned Magistrate recorded the order of discharge. 4. Section 176, IPC makes culpable omission or failure of giving notice or information to public servant by a person legally bound to give it. It does not appear from the record of the prosecution as to how the prosecution claimed that the accused was required to give information in respect of the burn injury received by Ms. Sangita. The fact that the case Under Section 307 is said to have been registered at the police station by itself confirms that the matter did not relate to any offence enumerated in Section 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring information of the offence to be given to the Magistrate or the Police Officer. It has not been demonstrated that it was a case where the law ordains a person having knowledge to give information to the Magistrate, police or any public servant. Thus, apart from the finding of the learned Magistrate that information about the event had duly been given to a public servant viz. the doctor, I find that there is no material on the basis of which, it can be inferred that the respondent was legally bound to give any such information. Under these circumstances, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity, whatsoever. 4. In the result, the revision is dismissed.