JUDGMENT Honble K.N. Sinha, J.—Heard Sri Amit Daga learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet filed against applicants under Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicants has-submitted that according to the post mortem report no injury was found on the body of the deceased. The visra was preserved which was sent for chemical examination but no poison was found therein. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted that in view of the post mortem report and chemical examination report of visra, the offence under Section 304-B, IPC is not made out. He has relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (10) ADJ 262 and submitted that in such cases charge-sheet cannot be filed. 5. I have gone through the said judgment and find that this Court has directed deletion of charge under Section 304-B, IPC. However, it permitted to continue trial under Section 498-A, IPC and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Section 304-B, IPC lays down that ‘where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. 6. The Evidence Act has made a special provision by introducing Section 113- B wherein it has been laid down as follows : “113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.—When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death." 7. In such cases the Court shall presume that such person has caused the dowry death. Deceased Smt. Pinki was married with applicant No. 1 Satendra Kumar in April 2004 and died on 5.12.2004 i.e. within eight months of her marriage. In such cases the Court shall presume that such person has caused the dowry death. Deceased Smt. Pinki was married with applicant No. 1 Satendra Kumar in April 2004 and died on 5.12.2004 i.e. within eight months of her marriage. Though there is no burn injury or any bodily injury but in view of Section 304-B, IPC the cases in which death occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances presumption would be there. In the F.I.R. there is allegation regarding demand of dowry. It is for the applicants to prove that the death was under normal circumstances. There is no suggestion or evidence even worth the name that the death was caused under normal circumstances. 8. Thus, the argument does not hold good and the judgment referred to above does not apply at all. 9. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also relied upon JT 2007 (3) SC 229, Harishchandra Prasad Muni and others v. State of Jharkhand and another in which Hon’ble the Apex Court has held that ‘It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that cognizance cannot be taken unless there is at least some material indicating the guilt of the accused.’ 10. This preposition of law has been laid down in a case under Sections 302/201/328/120-B, IPC in which the burden of proving the guilt is on the prosecution. Thus, this law is also not applicable on the facts of the present case. 11. Therefore, the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. ———