JUDGMENT : A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. By the present criminal application, the applicant has put to challenge First Information Report dated 12/3/2011 bearing Crime No. 29/2011 under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code registered by Police Station Officer, Nandura, District Buldhanaas well as charge-sheet dated 31/1/2012. Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties. We have perused the first information report carefully. It is seen from the papers filed along with the criminal application so also reply filed by non-applicant that Ramkay Infrastructure Ltd. was given contract by the principal employer Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. for supply, test, transport, construction, erection, testing and commissioning of sub-transmission lines. power transformers, new sub-stations, etc. in Malkapur Division. Ramkay Infrastructure Ltd. thereafter, in turn, gave contract to Servomax India Ltd. and the applicant, who in turn, gave work contract to local Contractor M/s. Saurabh Enterprises. The learned Counsel for the applicant, therefore, submits that the applicant is not concerned even remotely with the alleged rash or negligent act contemplated by Section304-A of Indian Penal Code and, therefore applicant cannot be prosecuted. It is further submitted that the applicant has paid compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to the dependents of the concerned worker, who died and the liability of workman's compensation lies on the principal employer and not on the applicant. 2. Per contra, Shri Ukey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent, opposed the criminal application and submitted that no care was taken by the officials of the applicant to see that worker did not come in touch with live electric current and that is why he died, which clearly amounts to negligence on the part of the applicant. 3. We have perused the first information report so also panchnama. Looking to the facts narrated by us above, we find that the following are the contents of the first information report in respect of the relevant date:- On 13/6/2010 A.D. case under Section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure was registered. Deceased was Upendra Bhuvaneshwar Chaudhari, age 25 years, r/o. Poritola, Taluq Mokha, District Rohtaj (Bihar State). Ramkay Company had taken contract from Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. and in turn, Ramkay Company had given contract to the applicant for carrying out the work at Malkapur. The work of erection was going on contract basis. Deceased was Upendra Bhuvaneshwar Chaudhari, age 25 years, r/o. Poritola, Taluq Mokha, District Rohtaj (Bihar State). Ramkay Company had taken contract from Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. and in turn, Ramkay Company had given contract to the applicant for carrying out the work at Malkapur. The work of erection was going on contract basis. At the relevant time, i.e. on 6/7/2010 at 15.30 hours, the work was going on in the field of Sitaram Bade for connecting electric wire from D.P. When worker Upendra Bhuvaneshwar Chaudhari, age 25 years was working there along with other workers and was trying to connect wire, he received severe electric shock and his heart stopped functioning due to electric current and died on the spot. He was then taken to Hospital where Doctor declared him dead. Other workers, who were working there, were interrogated by Police and they also stated that the incident took place accordingly. The first information report further states that as a matter of fact. Engineers of the applicant Company ought to have taken care to see that the electric current is not alive when work was being done. We find from the first information report and other papers that it is nowhere mentioned that any person directly from the applicant Company was present on the spot or was issuing directions as to how work should be done. At any rate, Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code reads thus: "Section 304-A: Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." Perusal of the above provision shows that an element of mens rea is sine qua non for holding offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code to have been made out. Any rash or negligent act would also attract the mens rea, but in the instant case, we find that there is absolutely no material to show that any person from the applicant Company was present on the spot to supervise the work that was going on and that he failed or neglected to stop the live electric current before the work was commenced. Therefore, it can safely be stated that none from the applicant Company was present on the spot at the relevant time and would, therefore, be not held guilty of negligence as contemplated by Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. If the officials of the applicant Company or other Company were in Hyderabad or at some other place away from the spot where incident took place, we do not think that same can have any nexus with the inaction or negligence on the part of the applicant Company. At any rate, we find that no offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code is made out. The applicant Company is said to have paid Rs. 75,000/- towards compensation to dependents of the deceased worker. To sum up, we find merit in the present criminal application. Hence, we make the following order: Order Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (ii) and (vi) of Criminal Application No. 218/2011. Criminal Application No. 218/2011 is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.