..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.33 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra. ...Petitioner. Versus 1.Nana Govind Kale, & 2.Eknath Punjaram Sonwane. ...Respondents. .... Mr.Rajesh More, APP for the Petitioner-State. Mr.Sachin Chavan h/f. Shriram S. Kulkarni, Adv. for the Respondents. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 18th April, 2007. DATED : 18th April, 2007. DATED : 18th April, 2007. P.C.: . Heard. 2. The respondents - orig.accused were working as linemen in MSEB. They were facing prosecution under Section 304 (A) read with 34 of IPC. The said case was R.C.C.No.130 of 1997 and it was pending before the JMFC, Yeola. The respondents preferred an application for discharge before the learned JMFC. The learned Magistrate by order dated 16.8.2004, discharged and acquitted the respondents in the said case. Being aggrieved thereby, this Revision has been preferred by the State. ..(2).. 3. It is the case of the complainant that one electric wire was broken in Gat No.51 of Kotamgaon Shivar. The deceased had made report to the concerned accused who were working as linemen in Yeola Zone No.2. However, nothing was done about the broken electric wire and as a result of which a live wire remained on the said area. The deceased persons came in contact with the said electric wire and they died due to shock. Thus, the case against the respondents is that they have not disconnected the electricity supply and, therefore, it caused death of two persons. In the present case, the kin of the deceased have already received the compensation from MSEB. 4. Though it is the prosecution case that intimation was given to the respondents that electric wire was broken, no material has been produced by the prosecution to show that indeed any such information was given to the respondents. Infact, the case of the respondents is that no information was received from the complainant either in the office of MSEB or to the concerned authority about breaking of the electric wire. On the relevant day, the respondents ..(3).. were discharging their lawful duties as per the orders of superior officers. There is no material to show that the respondents have received any order from their office to attend the said work. No such duties were allotted to them. Hence it cannot be said that there was any nexus between the incident and any intentional omission on the part of the respondents or that the respondents intentionally committed any such act by which death of Vasant and Uttam was caused. 5. Looking to all these aspects, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondents in the said case, I have perused the material and I find that there is no sufficient material to proceed against the present respondents. I find no illegality or impropriety in the order of the learned Magistrate whereby he discharged the respondents. Hence, Revision Application is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)