ORDER : 1. Heard Mr.A.N.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.Avinash Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the impugned order dated 5.3.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham in Criminal Revision No.4/2016 and also prayed for quashment of criminal proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kabirdham in Criminal Case No.1770/2015. 3. Undisputed facts of the case are that on 18.12.2014 an informant namely Shatrughan Dhurve gave a morgue intimation No.30/2014 to the Police Station Bodla, District Kabirdham to the effect that on 16.12.2014 at about 7 p.m. his father namely Lehruram Dhruve (since deceased) went missing in respect of which he lodged a missing report at Police Station Bodla. Thereafter on 18.12.2014 in morning while the informant along with other villagers were searching Lehruram Dhurve, they found that Lehruram was lying dead in a ditch containing water near the school belonging to the present petitioner, which was under construction in Bodla. 4. The police of Police Station Bodla after going through the morgue intimation, postmortem report and place of spot, recorded the statements of the witnesses namely Shatrughan Dhurve, Ramchandra Dhurve, Bharat Lal, Ranjan Dhurve and on the basis of aforesaid investigation, offence under Section 304A of the IPC was registered against the petitioner on 24.10.2015 and thereafter on 30.11.2015 the police of Police Station Bodla filed the chargesheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kabirdham on the basis of allegation and preliminary evidence, registered the case for offence under Section 304A of the IPC. On 9.2.2016 the learned trial Court found that there was enough substance of accusation and particular of the offences under Section 304A of the IPC and issued summons to the witnesses No.1 and 2. 5. The petitioner herein being aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Court dated 9.2.2016 preferred a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham being Criminal Revision No.4/2016 and by the impugned order dated 5.3.2016 the learned lower revisional Court has dismissed the revision. Hence, this CrMP. 6. 5. The petitioner herein being aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Court dated 9.2.2016 preferred a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham being Criminal Revision No.4/2016 and by the impugned order dated 5.3.2016 the learned lower revisional Court has dismissed the revision. Hence, this CrMP. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the statements made by two sons of the deceased namely Bharatlal and Shatrughan who have categorically stated that their father i.e. the deceased was not mentally as well as physically sound person and he was not able to stand up without help of the others if he sat or fell down. He would further submit that the order of the learned lower revisional Court is illegal and contrary to law as there is no other provision in CrPC to challenge the particulars of offence or framing of charges except by way of criminal revision. Deceased Lehruram died due to falling in ditch situated in land of the petitioner. There was no reason or occasion for the deceased to go in the private land of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot be held negligent for death of Lehruram. He would also submit that if the whole prosecution story is accepted in its totality, no offence is made out against the petitioner. The ingredients of Section 304A of the IPC is not made out against the present petitioner as the proximate cause resulting in death of the deceased must be positively proved. As such, the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham in Criminal Revision No.4/2016 and the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Criminal Case No.1770/2015 deserve to be quashed. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sushil Ansal v. State through Central Bureau of Investigation, (2014) 6 SCC 173 . 7. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State would oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that no case for indulgence of this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC is made out by the petitioner and the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Notice issued to the informant has been served to him, but he did not appear to press this matter. 9. 8. Notice issued to the informant has been served to him, but he did not appear to press this matter. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the petition. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sushil Ansal (supra) has held that one of the basic ingredients for committing an offence under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code is that the rash or negligent act of the accused ought to be direct immediate and proximate cause of the death and that the principle of law that the death must be shown to the direct immediate and proximate result of the rash or negligent act is well accepted. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of causa causans that for offence under Section 304 A to be proved, it is not only necessary to establish that the accused was either rash or grossly negligent but also that such rashness or gross negligence was the cause that resulted in the death of the victim. Paras 80 to 84 of the said judgment dealing with the issue are quoted as follows: “80. We may now advert to the second and an equally, if not, more important dimension of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC viz. that the act of the accused must be the proximate, immediate or efficient cause of the death of the victim without the intervention of any other person’s negligence. This aspect of the legal requirement is also settled by a long line of decisions of the courts in this country. We may at the outset refer to a Division Bench decision of the High Court of Bombay in Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap, (1902) 4 Bom LR 679 where Sir Lawrence Jenkins speaking for the Court summed up the legal position in the following words: “... to impose criminal liability under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that the act should have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused and that act must be proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another negligence. to impose criminal liability under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that the act should have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused and that act must be proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another negligence. It must have been the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non.” The above statement of law was accepted by this Court in Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 1616 . We shall refer to the facts of this case a little later especially because Mr Jethmalani, learned counsel for the appellant Sushil Ansal, placed heavy reliance upon the view this Court has taken in the fact situation of that case. 81. Suffice it to say that this Court has in Kurban Hussein case (supra) accepted in unequivocal terms the correctness of the proposition that criminal liability under Section 304-A IPC shall arise only if the prosecution proves that the death of the victim was the result of a rash or negligent act of the accused and that such act was the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another person’s negligence. A subsequent decision of this Court in Suleman Rahiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 829 has once again approved the view taken in Omkar Rampratap case that the act of the accused must be proved to be the causa causans and not simply a causa sine qua non for the death of the victim in a case under Section 304-A IPC. 82. To sum up: for an offence under Section 304-A to be proved it is not only necessary to establish that the accused was either rash or grossly negligent but also that such rashness or gross negligence was the causa causans that resulted in the death of the victim. 83. As to what is meant by causa causans we may gainfully refer to Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edn.) which defines that expression as under: “Causa causans.—The immediate cause; the last link in the chain of causation.” ”The Advance Law Lexicon edited by Justice Chandrachud, former Chief Justice of India defines causa causans as follows: “Causa causans.—The immediate cause as opposed to a remote cause; the ‘last link in the chain of causation’; the real effective cause of damage.” 84. The expression “proximate cause” is defined in the 5th Edn. of Black’s Law Dictionary as under: “Proximate cause.—That which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury and without which the result would not have occurred. Wisniewski v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 226 Pa Super 574, A2d at p. 748. That which is nearest in the order of responsible causation. That which stands next in causation to the effect, not necessarily in time or space but in causal relation. The proximate cause of an injury is the primary or moving cause, or that which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the accident could not have happened, if the injury be one which might be reasonably anticipated or foreseen as a natural consequence of the wrongful act. An injury or damage is proximately caused by an act, or a failure to act, whenever it appears from the evidence in the case, that the act or omission played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury or damage; and that the injury or damage was either a direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of the act or omission.” 11. It transpires from the record that deceased Lehruram died due to falling in ditch situated in land of Bhoomiswami right of the petitioner and there is no reason or occasion for the deceased to go in the private land of the petitioner. 12. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, particularly considering the statements made by two sons of the deceased namely Bharatlal and Shatrughan who have categorically stated that their father i.e. the deceased was not mentally as well as physically sound person and he was not able to stand up without help of the others if he sat or fell down and applying the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sushil Ansal (supra), I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for interference under Section 482 of the CrPC. 13. 13. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 of the CrPC is allowed and the order dated 5.3.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham in Criminal Revision No.4/2016 and the order 9.2.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kabirdham in Criminal Case No.1770/2015 are hereby quashed including all consequential proceedings pending before the trial Court.