JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 5th February, 2001, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 304-A and 314 IPC. 2. The short facts of the case are that on 15.05.1999, the complainant filed a report that her daughter-in-law, Jyoti having a profuse bleeding. She was admitted at the hospital administered by the present petitioner. With the consent of the patient, a DNC was carried out with due care and caution, but the condition of the patient deteriorated and she was referred to SMS Hospital, but complainant took her to Agra where another Dr. Alka Sein operated her and she died on 19th May, 1999. Present petitioner is not negligent and she was not having any intention to commit miscarriage. She is qualified doctor and action has been taken by her in a good faith, hence, charges under Sections 314 and 304-A IPC could not be made out against her. 3. Per contra, contention of learned Public Prosecutor is that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 4. As regard to charges under Section 314 IPC, the contention of present petitioner is that deceased Jyoti was pregnant is not the case of the prosecution. Complainant, Vidhya Devi has not stated anything in FIR that Jyoti was having pregnancy at the time when she was taken to the clinic owned by the present petitioner. It is true that in FIR, no such fact has been narrated, but in statement of Vidhya Devi, it has been stated that Jyoti was having one month pregnancy and Arun Kumar Bhardwaj, husband of the deceased has also stated the same fact. Indoor tickets of Jyoti of Shastri Nursing Home also reveals the same fact hence, the fact of pregnancy was prima facie established by prosecution evidence. 5. The further contention of the present petitioner is that the case of the prosecution is that present petitioner has conducted DNC without due care and caution, rather negligently, due to which Jyoti received Perforation on utrus wall. This is not the case of the prosecution that the present petitioner was intended to cause miscarriage. It is not in dispute that Jyoti was taken to clinic of the present petitioner. This is not the case of the prosecution that the present petitioner was intended to cause miscarriage. It is not in dispute that Jyoti was taken to clinic of the present petitioner. She was having profuse bleeding and DNC has been done to stop it in good faith, hence, no intention of miscarriage can be attributed to present petitioner. Further fact, which goes in favour of the present petitioner is that 'DNC has been done negligently. If negligence has been attributed to present petitioner, at the same time, she cannot be attributed with intention to commit miscarriage. The negligence and intention cannot be attributed to a person for the same act at the same time. There is no evidence of any of the witnesses that the present petitioner was intended to cause any miscarriage, hence, the charges under Section 314 IPC could not be sustained against the present petitioner and she is liable to be discharged for the offence under Section 314 IPC. 6. Counsel for petitioner submits that as regard charge under Section 304-A, liberty be given to take all objections before the Court below at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. 7. Consequently, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed and the petitioner is discharged for the offence under Section 314 IPC and present petitioner is free to take all objections regarding charges under Section 304-A before the Court below at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.Revision partly allowed. *******