Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. This petition has been filed by Chetan Bhatnagar and Parminder Singh to challenge the charges framed against them by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari. Earlier the trial Court had on September 25, 1998 discharged the accused but that order was challenged through a revision petition and was set aside by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated May 23, 2000. 2. The petitioners had, through criminal revision 16 of 2001 challenged the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on May 23, 2000 and through criminal revision 1296 of 2000 challenged the order of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate whereby charges have been framed against them. Both petitions shall be disposed of together. Notice to the complainant was also issued and he was impleaded as respondent and was heard. 3. This case relates to the death of Subh Ram, son of the complainant Raghbir Singh, on November 13, 1997. Subh Ram was a mechanic employed by Satish Jain on job basis. On the fateful day he was called by Satish Jain for fitting a tubewell engine. At 6 PM the complainant came to know from Naval Singh that Subh Ram had gone to fit the engine with Jains men in a well in Bariyawas and had become unconscious. He was taken out of the well and sent to Rewari for treatment. Chetan Bhatnagar and Parminder Singh, two engineers, of Greaves Company (petitioners herein) and Jains employee Shiva had also been present at the spot. When the complainant reached the hospital he found his son lying dead. The complainant lodged the report giving the above facts and stating that Subh Rams death was due to the carelessness of the three men named above. The trial court has framed charge under Section 304-A IPC for committing a negligent act which caused Subh Rams death. 4. The matter was considered in detail by the learned Addl. C.J.M., who vide orders dated September 25, 1998 had found that charges were not established as the prosecution had not filed copies of the inquest report and the post-mortem report. The said order was set aside by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and the trial court was directed to consider the framing of charges afresh after calling for the said documents. The said order was set aside by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and the trial court was directed to consider the framing of charges afresh after calling for the said documents. The trial Court came to the conclusion that there was sufficient material on record and that the accused could be charged under Section 304-A IPC. 5. The incident leading to Subh Rams death was witnessed only by Tripti wife of Mukesh (and daughter-in-law of Naval Singh), resident of Majri Gurdas who had this to say in her police statement :- "I am resident of the above mentioned address and do household work. On 13.11.1997 in the evening, I went to my well in the area Bariyawas to get kasni. At that time of the well two persons of Jain namely Subh Ram and Shiva and two engineers namely Parminder Singh and Chetan Bhatnagar were present. Subh Ram had gone inside the well at that time to repair the engine and there itself he became unconscious. Bhatnagar called out aloud saying God knows what had happened to Subh Ram in the well and that he had become unconscious. On hearing this I went to the village and many persons reached the well. Subh Ram was taken out of the well and taken to Rewari for treatment. My father-in-law Naval Singh went to village Sanghwari to give information about Subh Ram. Later on information came that Subh Ram had died due to carelessness of the above mentioned three workers. I have heard the statement which is correct." The sole question to be considered in this case is whether the charge dated October 9, 2000 can be sustained. Charges were framed in the following terms :- "That on 13.11.97 at about 6.00 P.M. in the area of Bhariyawas you all by doing negligent act caused death of Subh Ram s/o Raghubir and thus you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and within the cognizance of this Court." 6. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners are engineers employed by the company which had manufactured the tube-well engine. The engine had been installed by a dealer at Rewari named Satish Jain. The engine developed a defect which required repairs. Satish Jain sent for Subh Ram deceased to repair the engine. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners are engineers employed by the company which had manufactured the tube-well engine. The engine had been installed by a dealer at Rewari named Satish Jain. The engine developed a defect which required repairs. Satish Jain sent for Subh Ram deceased to repair the engine. According to Tripti she had gone to her well (the witness belonged to the family which owned the well) and found two persons of Jain namely, Subh Ram deceased and Shiva accused present there. Two engineers were also present there namely, Parminder Singh and Chetan Bhatnagar, the accused petitioners herein. Subh Ram had alone gone inside the well to repair the engine and had become unconscious therein. Bhatnagar called out loudly saying "God knows what had happened to Subh Ram in the well that he had become unconscious". Subh Ram was taken out of the well and taken to Rewari for treatment where he died. 7. According to the counsel for the petitioners the above facts, even if accepted in totality did not constitute any rash or negligent act that required framing of a charge against the petitioners under Section 304-A IPC. The charges, therefore, deserved to be quashed. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 S.C. 1616. In this case, the owner of a paint factory was tried for causing death by negligence of seven workers, who died on account of a fire which broke out in the factory caused by the hurried mixing of turpentine to rosin which had not been allowed to cool down below the flash point of turpentine. This resulted in the mixture overflowing with froth and igniting the varnish and turpentine which had been stored at a short distance. The material on the premises was combustible in nature and this made the fire spread fast leading to seven men getting trapped and engulfed in the fire. At the time the occurrence took place the owner of the factory was not present on the premises. There was also an additional charge against the accused under Section 285 IPC for negligent conduct in respect of fire or combustible material. At the time the occurrence took place the owner of the factory was not present on the premises. There was also an additional charge against the accused under Section 285 IPC for negligent conduct in respect of fire or combustible material. The Apex Court concluded that in order to sustain the charge under S. 304 I.P.C. death must be the direct result of the rash or negligent act of the accused and the said act must be sufficient, without intervention of other negligence to cause death in order to establish the charge of 304-A IPC. The act must be the causa causans (immediate cause). It was not enough that it was the cause sine qua non (the necessary cause or condition allowing something e.g. the causa causans to be operative but not itself causa causans). The accused in that case was acquitted of the offence under Section 304-A IPC but convicted under Section 285 IPC. The Apex Court had gone into the chemical processes being carried out in the factory before finding that the mere fact the fire would not have taken place if the accused had not permitted the burners to be put in the same room in which the turpentine and varnish were stored would not be enough to make him liable under Section 304-A IPC. Actually the fire would not have occurred with the result that the seven persons were burnt to death without the negligence of one Hatim (the person who had poured turpentine into hot rosin without letting the chemical cool down below the flash point of turpentine). 8. Reference has also made to Krishan Lal v. State of Haryana, 1994(1) RCR 259. In this case the accused-petitioner was getting his building constructed through a contractor and during construction a wall of the building collapsed killing three persons and injuring six others. It was held that the petitioner was a layman and could not be held liable for the negligence of the persons constructing the building. Thirdly, reliance had been place on B.P. Ram and anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1991(1) RCR 654. In this case a boy had died in the swimming pool run by a club. The club had neither provided a life-guard and nor had it placed any notice of caution near the pool. The boy surreptitiously entered the pool and drowned. Thirdly, reliance had been place on B.P. Ram and anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1991(1) RCR 654. In this case a boy had died in the swimming pool run by a club. The club had neither provided a life-guard and nor had it placed any notice of caution near the pool. The boy surreptitiously entered the pool and drowned. The Honorary Secretary and Chowkidar of the club were prosecuted under Section 304-A IPC for absence of a life guard and for not placing a sign of caution. It was held that the negligence of the club may make members of the club liable under tort but was not culpable under Section 304-A IPC. 9. Lastly, reference was made to Dr. V. Rugmini v. State of Kerala and others (Court), 1987 Cr. Law Journal 200 (Full Bench of Kerala High Court) wherein it was held that to sustain a charge of causing death by negligent act it was necessary that death should have been the direct result of the negligent act. That act must be the proximate cause, without any other supervening act or intervention. The court had relied on the words of Sir Lawrence Jenkins C.J. reproduced from Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap, 1902(4) Bombay Law Reporter 679 "it must be the causa causans, it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non". This doctrine was approved by the Honble Supreme Court in Kurben Hussain Mohammedali v. State of Maharashtra (supra) and there is no reason to depart from this. The doctrine is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. What had happened in Dr. Rugminis case was that she had failed to divulge to the deceaseds husband that his wife had a damaged heart and when the deceased gave birth to a cyanosed baby, both mother and the child died after delivery. Death of the deceased was attributable to absence of a specialist in cardiology. Since the Doctor had not divulged this fact to the deceaseds husband despite having made the diagnosis, the deceased died. However, the court considered various factors and came to the conclusion that investigation must continue and declined to interfere. In the present case investigation was complete long time back and charges have been framed. Therefore, this court can look into the material before it to decide whether charge should be quashed. 10. However, the court considered various factors and came to the conclusion that investigation must continue and declined to interfere. In the present case investigation was complete long time back and charges have been framed. Therefore, this court can look into the material before it to decide whether charge should be quashed. 10. It would be appropriate to consider the medico-legal evidence of this case because that may give some indication regarding the circumstances leading to Subh Rams death. Relevant portions of the inquest report have been reproduced in the grounds of revision and reveal no sign of injury whatsoever. The post-mortem report also reveals no injury. The opinion of the Medical Officer was that the cause of death would be given after getting the reports, of viscera and blood samples from the chemical examiner. The Forensic Science Laboratory examined the viscera for poison and reported vide report dated April 17, 2000 that it had failed to detect any common poison in the various exhibits. Therefore, the medico-legal aspect of the case did not indicate how Subh Ram died but it certainly established that he was neither inflicted any injury and nor did he suffer any injury while he was down below in the well. He was also not poisoned. 11. On behalf of the State the main argument was that there had been delay in getting medical help which had led to death. If Subh Ram had been given immediate medical treatment, he may have survived. Counsel for the complainant argued that the petitioners were last seen with the deceased, therefore, they must disclose how he had died. The petitioners had not taken proper care before lowering Subh Ram into the well so they must explain what had happened. 12. If the trial against the petitioners is commenced it is unlikely that prosecution would be able to lead any stronger evidence than what is already there is the final report. The prosecution relies heavily on Triptis statement, which has been reproduced above. The medico-legal aspect of the case is also clearly known. Therefore, can it at all be said that failure to get timely medical aid, failure to explain how the deceased died, failure to take proper care before lowering him into the well were causa causans or the immediate cause of death caused by the negligence. 13. The medico-legal aspect of the case is also clearly known. Therefore, can it at all be said that failure to get timely medical aid, failure to explain how the deceased died, failure to take proper care before lowering him into the well were causa causans or the immediate cause of death caused by the negligence. 13. At the time of the occurrence there were four persons present at the site, two engineers and two mechanics. The engineers had probably asked one of the mechanics (Subh Ram) to go down the well and carry out repairs. They must have had idea of what the defect was. They would have also told Subh Ram what defect to look for and the steps be taken to remove it. Thereafter Subh Ram entered the pit of the well. From that stage onwards he was alone. If he encountered any danger in the pit then it was for him to take preventive steps. If the pit has snakes or scorpions then the fact would only have been known to Subh Ram and to on one else, therefore, if he got a snake-bite then negligence could not be fastened to the persons waiting for him above the pit because they had no knowledge of this particular danger. If Subh Ram felt uneasiness or shortness of breath on account of lack of oxygen or a feeling of suffocation in the pit then it was for him and for him alone to decide to abort the mission and come up for air. In such an eventuality there would no question of any negligence. The immediate cause of death was not an act of rashness or negligence on the part of the petitioners but was something else. The mission was fraught with personal danger to Subh Ram but it was for him to take preventive steps to preserve his life. It could not have been something perceived by the three men who had sent him down the pit. 14. It is quite clear that Subh Rams death was neither by malice aforethought or by criminal negligence. It was neither murder nor manslaughter. Subh Rams death was by misadventure. In other words there was complete absence of any criminal intention or even criminal negligence. It is true that the petitioner was present at the site when Subh Ram went down. It is quite clear that Subh Rams death was neither by malice aforethought or by criminal negligence. It was neither murder nor manslaughter. Subh Rams death was by misadventure. In other words there was complete absence of any criminal intention or even criminal negligence. It is true that the petitioner was present at the site when Subh Ram went down. It may also be true that the petitioners were unable to secure timely medical aid for Subh Ram after he was taken out of the well. Nevertheless there is nothing to suggest that the petitioners had any criminal intention nor was there any premeditation on their part in sending Subh Ram to repair the engine. Failure to warn Subh Ram of the dangers involved and failure to evacuate him in time and take him to hospital would not be criminal offences as there was no rashness or criminal negligence whatsoever on the part of the petitioners. However, the act of the petitioners may give cause of action to the legal representatives of Subh Ram to file a suit for damages but the success of civil action would depend on the pleadings, the evidence and the preponderance of the probabilities. Petitioners tortuous liability may be present but there was no criminal negligence in this case. 15. Resultantly, Criminal Revision No. 1296 of 2000 is allowed and charges framed against the petitioners as well as all subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed. Criminal Revision No. 16 of 2001 is hereby dismissed being infructuous. Revision allowed.