JUDGMENT 1. - By way of instant revision petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.RC. the petitioners have challenged the order dated 27th January, 2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur, whereby he has framed charge against them for offence under Section 304-A IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Dr. Bhawani Singh lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur stating inter alia that the Corporation has laid electricity lines in the locality named Dauji Ki Pol (Devidan Nagar). The electricity lines have been laid in a careless manner so much so in the evening when the electricity passes through this line for road lights it also touches the service lines provided for the domestic purpose. On 14A.2002 at about 7.00 PM when the electricity was supplied to the road fights it also passed through the service line touching the earth wire of his house. His wife was being electrocuted, who was displaying wet clothes on iron wire, on account of which she fell down. She was taken to the hospital where she was declared dead. According to the complainant the first petitioner Sahi Ram, who was Assistant Engineer of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur and Kamlesh Mathur, Junior Engineer (Electricity), Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur were responsible for laying down the defective electric line. They acted rashly and negligently resulting into death of his wife. On this information the police registered a case against the petitioners for offence under Section 304-A IPC and proceeded with investigation. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel that no negligence whatsoever can be attributed to the petitioner because of the mishap occurred on account of wet clothes being hanged on wire and as such electrocution cannot be attributed to any rashness or negligence on part of the petitioners. The learned counsel has also referred to Sections 81 & 82 of the Electricity Supply Act along with Section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act, which provides that no prosecution can be taken against the public servant for the action done in good faith without the sanction of the competent authority. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Anand Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1975 WLN (UC) Page 514 wherein the expression "good faith" used in sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the Electricity Supply Act has been interpreted. 4. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Anand Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1975 WLN (UC) Page 514 wherein the expression "good faith" used in sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the Electricity Supply Act has been interpreted. 4. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the relevant record. Section 56 sub-clause (2) reads as follows:- "56(2)- No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act, by a public officer except with the sanction- (a) in the case of person employed in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government; and (b) in any other case, of the State Government." 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are public officers within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. It is held by this Court in Anand Singh's case that the expression 'good faith' used in sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the Electricity Supply Act has to be construed in the light of the definition given in the General Clauses Act and not in the light of the definition given in the Indian Penal Code because Section 3 of the General Clauses Act clearly provides that the definition therein shall apply to the General Clauses Act and all Central Acts and Regulations made after the commencement of the Act. In my view the controversy involved in the instant case is squarely covered by the decision in Anand Singh's case (supra). Thus, I am of the view that the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for offence under Section 304-A IPC without the sanction of the State Government. 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur dated 27th January, 2004 framing charge against the petitioners for offence under Section 304-A IPC is quashed and set aside.Petition Allowed - Charge Quashed. *******