JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 17.6.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui in Sessions Case No. 49/2012 whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 304 Part II and 120-B I.P.C. 2. The short fact of the case are that an F.I.R. No. 48/2012 has been registered at PS Sikndara, Dausa on 4.2.2012 stating therein that the children of Kiran Academy Educational School were standing on road side, the driver of the jeep rashly and negligently hit the children in which Golu and Kuldeep were died and some children received serious injuries. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the vehicle Vijay Singh under Section 304- A I.P.C., at the same time the present petitioners have also been charged for the offence under Section 304 Part - 11 I.P.C. on the ground that they were having knowledge that children were going in Kissan Bugga (Jugad), the accident has taken place and they were having knowledge that such accident would happen if the children will travel in Kissan Bugga, on this assumption present petitioners were charged. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that they are not responsible for the accident as the children are going in Kissan Bugga has nothing to do with the accident and the case of the prosecution is that children were standing on road when they met with accident and even for the sake of argument if it is assumed that children were in Kissan Bugga still rash and negligent of driver of jeep is the cause of the accident. From any stretch of imagination, knowledge could not be attributed to the present petitioners of the offence. 4. Per contra, the contention of learned Public Prosecutor is that there is no infirmity in impugned order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the photo copies of the record. 6. Case of the prosecution is that children were standing on the road side when they met with accident. For the sake of arguments, if it is assumed that children were going in Kissan Bugga still the owners of the Kissan Bugga cannot He held liable for accident. 6. Case of the prosecution is that children were standing on the road side when they met with accident. For the sake of arguments, if it is assumed that children were going in Kissan Bugga still the owners of the Kissan Bugga cannot He held liable for accident. Accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the jeep and it could not be held that had the children were not travelling in the Kissan Bugga the accident may not happen. Reliance has been placed on the case of Kurban Hussein Mohamedali Bangwalla v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 1616 , where it has been held that death must be direct result of the rash or negligent act of accused, it must be the causa causans. Here in the present case plying Kissan Bugga and allowing children to travel in Kissan Bugga is in no way connected with the act of the negligence of other accused Vijay Singh. There seems to be no sufficient reason to proceed against the present petitioners. It cannot be attributed to the present, petitioners that they were having knowledge that travelling in Kissan Buggi is liable to commit the cause of death of the children hence there is no sufficient ground to charge the present petitioners for the offence under Section 304 Indian Penal Code read with Section 120-B I.P.C. Revision petition is allowed and the petitioners are discharged from the charge under Sections 304 - 11 and 120 -B I.P.C.Revision allowed. *******