ORDER : Shri S. K. Tiwari, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Govt. Adv. for the respondent/State. Arugments heard. 2. This revision is directed against the order-dated 4-3-2009 passed by Shri K. M. Ahmad, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umariya in Criminal Case No. 350/2009, whereby cognizance of the offence punishable under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken under section 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure upon the facts as disclosed in the documents annexed to the charge-sheet that was submitted in respect of the offence under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case may briefly be stated thus - On 21-11-2008 at about 9 a.m., Sukhram (since deceased), who was maintaining an illicit relationship with the mother of applicant Nos. 1 and 2, was brought in an injured condition to Police Station Indwaar by Sarpanch Barelal Choudhary and his companions. He gave information to the effect that on 21-11-2008 at 4 in the morning, while going towards the house of Kathura Jaiswal as he reached near the agricultural field belonging to Bharat Sharma, applicant Nos. 1 and 3 jointly assaulted him with tangies with the assistance of applicant No. 2. Sukhram was sent to the Community Health Centre, Manpur where he was examined by Dr. Vinod Gupta. The Medical Expert has found the following injuries - (i) Flash burn of electric current, base is charred, size 4"½ cm x 1"½ cm x 1 cm on the left ankle anteriorly and 4 cm x 1"½ cm x 1 cm on right ankle anteriorly. (ii) Incised wound with blood stain, spindle size, 2 "½ cm x "½ cm x "½ cm on left knee (lower side) anteriorly. (iii) Contact burn, size "½ cm x "½ cm on left ring finger (posteriorly), 3 cm x 1"½ cm on nose, 3 cm x 1 cm on upper lip, 3 cm x 1 cm on lower lip, 6 cm x 4 cm on right hand posteriorly and 3 cm x 1"½ cm on chin. After being treated, Sukhram had returned home. However, on 11-12-2008 at about 4 p.m., he breathed his last. The Autopsy Surgeon Dr. N. A. Khan opined that cause of Sukhram's death was shock due to hypovolemic and septic shock (septicemia). After being treated, Sukhram had returned home. However, on 11-12-2008 at about 4 p.m., he breathed his last. The Autopsy Surgeon Dr. N. A. Khan opined that cause of Sukhram's death was shock due to hypovolemic and septic shock (septicemia). Accordingly, a merg (death case) was registered and in the light of the finding of the inquiry thereinto, SHO S. N. Pandey registered a case under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code by scribing the FIR on 12-1-2009. 4. A bare perusal of the order in question would reveal that in arriving at the conclusion that prima facie offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder was made against the applicants, learned Magistrate has taken note of - (a) Case diary statements of Joje Bhaiga and Khelan Bhaiga suggesting that the applicant No. 1 had made a confession to the effect that Sukhram had come into contact with the electric wire laid down by him and the other applicants. (b) Police statement of Sarpanch Barelal indicating that nearly 4 days after the death of Sukhram, Joje and Khelan had apprised him of the confession made by applicant No. 1. 5. Nevertheless, there was nothing on record to presume that the applicants had planted the live electric wire with intent to kill Sukhram or that he had the knowledge that their act was likely to cause any person's death. Admittedly, death of Sukhram had occurred nearly 20 days after receiving the injuries due to hypovolemic and septicemia. 6. As rightly pointed out by learned Magistrate, case diary statements of Chandrabhusan, Shivpal and Jugal Kishore contained reference to the admission made by Sukhram that after sustaining injuries while coming into contact with the electric wire, he had implicated the applicants due to animosity in view of imputation as to illicit intimacy. 7. Law on the point involved has been succinctly explained by the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Chittarmal, JT 2007(9) SC 261 in the following terms - "Section 304A relates to death caused by negligence. Section 304A applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probabilities will cause death. The provision relates to offences outside the range of sections 299 and 300 Indian Penal Code. It applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly the cause of death of another person. The provision relates to offences outside the range of sections 299 and 300 Indian Penal Code. It applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly the cause of death of another person. Rashness and negligence are essential elements under section 304-A. It carves out a specific offence where death is caused by doing a rash or negligent act and that act does not amount to culpable homicide under section 299 or murder in section 300, Indian Penal Code. Doing an act with the intent to kill a person or knowledge that doing an act was likely to cause a person's death is culpable homicide. When the intent or knowledge is the direct motivating force of the act, section 304-A, Indian Penal Code has to make room for the graver and more serious charge of culpable homicide." 8. Applying the guiding principle to the factual scenario as highlighted above, it can easily be concluded that the learned Magistrate committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offence under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The order, therefore, deserves interference under the revisional jurisdiction. 9. In the result, the revision stands allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. As an obvious consequence, the trial shall continue in respect of the offence under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umariya only.