Honble GUPTA, J.–This revision is direction against the order dt. 5.5.98 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali whereby he ordered the framing of the charges u/s 498A 304B IPC against the petitioners. (2). Mr. Joshi contended that there is no evidence on record that there was demand of dowry by the petitioners and the deceased was subjected to cruelty for the demand of dowry. According to him, without the evidence of demand of dowry charge u/s. 304B IPC could not be framed against the petitioners. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the cases of Bhagwan Sahai vs. Raju (1), and Jai Ram vs. State of Raj (2). He submitted that accused Bhanwarlal Prajapat is of different community and is not related to the husband of the deceased and, there- fore, charge u/S. 498A IPC could not be framed against him. He pointed out that there is no accused by name Shankar Lal Kalal, but due to typographical error the name of Shanker Lal S/0 Poonamaji Kalal has been stated at S.No.5 of the petition whereas the name of Bhanwarlal Prajapat ought to have been typed. (3). Learned Public Prosecutor, though conceded that a charge u/s. 498 A IPC could not be framed against Bhanwarlal as he is not the relative of the husband, contended that there is material on record to frame a charge u/s. 306 IPC and if this Court holds that a charge u/s. 304-B IPC could not be framed against the accused the case be remanded for trial u/s 306 IPC. (4). I have carefully considered the above arguments. The opening words of Sec. 498-A IPC are clear to hold that the offence under this Section is committed either by the husband or the relative of the husband. Bhanwarlal is by caste `Kumhar. It is not stated that he is the relative of the husband of the deceased. There is thus substance in the contention of Mr. Joshi that a charge u/s. 498A IPC could not be framed against Bhanwarlal. (5). A charge u/s. 304-B IPC can be framed on the allegation that there was dowry death. In the dying declaration of the deceased, it is not stated that the deceased was being harassed or that she was subjected to cruelty for the demand of dowry. This fact is not stated in the statements of the witnesses u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. also. A charge u/s. 304-B IPC can be framed on the allegation that there was dowry death. In the dying declaration of the deceased, it is not stated that the deceased was being harassed or that she was subjected to cruelty for the demand of dowry. This fact is not stated in the statements of the witnesses u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. also. Therefore, it has to be accepted that a charge u/S. 304-B IPC could not be fra- med against the petitioners. (6). For the reasons stated above, the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand so far as it relates to the framing of charges u/Sec. 498-A and 304-B IPC against Bhanwarlal s/o Shri Poonamaji Prajapat. Both the charges are quashed. Further, the charge u/Section 304-B IPC is not sustainable and is quashed against the other petitioners. (7). It is not proper for this Court to express opinion on this contention of the Public Prosecutor that on the material on record a charge u/s 306 IPC can be framed against the accused. It is directed that if a submission is made before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge for framing a charge u/S. 306 IPC against the petitioners, he shall pass speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and the trial shall be held in accordance with law. With these observations, revision petition is disposed of.