The absence of criminal intent or mens rea is a valid defense in cases involving conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and falsification of documents.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - Conspiracy - Cheating - Forgery - Falsification of Documents - L.T.C. Rules - Mens Rea - Dishonest Intention - Absence of Criminal Intent - Acquittal.
Fact of the Case:

Four accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced for conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and falsification of documents related to Leave Travel Concession (L.T.C.) claims from H.M.T. Unit 6, Ajmer. The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to claim false L.T.C. by submitting fake documents showing a journey from Ajmer to Kanyakumari and back, which they never undertook.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no evidence of a criminal conspiracy among the accused to cheat H.M.T. The accused had initially planned to travel to Kanyakumari but had to abandon the journey due to a dispute with the driver. They had traveled more than 8000 kms and paid the driver for the entire distance, but claimed mileage only for 6000 kms. The court held that there was no dishonest intention or wrongful gain involved, and the accused acted bona fide on the advice of their superiors.
Issues: 1. Whether there was a criminal conspiracy among the accused to cheat H.M.T.? 2. Whether the accused had the requisite mens rea or dishonest intention to commit the alleged offenses? 3. Whether the accused's actions amounted to cheating, forgery, or falsification of documents?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that there was no evidence of a criminal conspiracy among the accused. The accused had initially planned to travel to Kanyakumari but had to abandon the journey due to a dispute with the driver. They had traveled more than 8000 kms and paid the driver for the entire distance, but claimed mileage only for 6000 kms. The court held that there was no dishonest intention or wrongful gain involved, and the accused acted bona fide on the advice of their superiors. 2. The court held that the accused did not have the requisite mens rea or dishonest intention to commit the alleged offenses. The accused had initially planned to travel to Kanyakumari but had to abandon the journey due to a dispute with the driver. They had traveled more than 8000 kms and paid the driver for the entire distance, but claimed mileage only for 6000 kms. The court held that there was no dishonest intention or wrongful gain involved, and the accused acted bona fide on the advice of their superiors. 3. The court held that the accused's actions did not amount to cheating, forgery, or falsification of documents. The accused had initially planned to travel to Kanyakumari but had to abandon the journey due to a dispute with the driver. They had traveled more than 8000 kms and paid the driver for the entire distance, but claimed mileage only for 6000 kms. The court held that there was no dishonest intention or wrongful gain involved, and the accused acted bona fide on the advice of their superiors.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused-appellants, and acquitted them of all charges.

JUDGMENT

1. - This appeal is directed by four accused-appellants against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, dated 18.9.1980 convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant as under:

(i)

U/S 120(b) IPC

six month's rigorous imprisonment.

(ii)

U/S 420 IPC

two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 50/-, and in default thereof further R.I. for 7 days.

(iii)

U/Ss. 467 & 468 I.P.C.

two year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default thereof further R.I. for 7 days.

(iv)

U/S 471 IPC

two year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default thereof further R.I. for 7 days.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this case are that an F.I.R. Ex. P. 70 numbered 16/77 was taken down by Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. (S.P.E.), Jaipur, Shri B.P. Bhatnagar wherein it was alleged that on receipt of a source information a preliminary enquiry No. 22/76 was conducted in the office and the facts which were collected during the preliminary enquiry, were verified and it transpired from them that Serva Shri S.D. Gangwani Stores Officer and K. Lallan senior A.S.K. and J.S.D. Raisinghani Accountant H.M.T., Unit 6, Ajmer, while working therein entered into a criminal conspiracy with one Motilal owner and driver of vehicle R.J.X. 1121 to cheat H.M.T. Unit 6 by way of claiming false L.T.C. on the basis of fake documents. In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy it was alleged that Serva Shri Gangwani, Lallan and Raisinghani obtained L.T.C. advance of Rs. 2828/-, 1418/- and 3181/- respectively during the year 1975 under pretext to undertake journey from Ajmer to Kanyakumari and back in between 16.10.75 to 4.11.75 along with their family members. It was alleged that infact they never went to Kanyakumari and in conspiracy with the driver prepared fake bills and cheated the department. On these facts case under Ss. 120B read with S. 420, 420 IPC and 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was registered and investigation was handed over to one Inspector Sunderlal.

3. During the course of investigation accused S. D. Gangwani, Stores Officer was tendered pardon and made approver. After investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against four persons, namely, C.H. Logani, J.S.D. Rai Singhani, N. K. Lallan and Govind Jamtani. It was alleged in the charge sheet that all these persons were entitled for L.T.C. (leave travel concession) to whom time onward and to any place in India once in a block of four years. According to this scheme employees were to pay fare of first four hundred kms. on outward journey and last 400 kms. On inward journey from their own pocket and rest is to be paid by the department. The aforesaid four accused, it was alleged, declared that they intended to avail L.T.C. facility Ex Ajmer to Kanyakumari and back and obtained leave from 20.10.75 to 4.11.75 and Gangawani, Rai Singhani and Lallan obtained advance of Rs. 2200/-, 2800/- and 1100/- respectively. Logani and Jhamtani however, did not take advances. All the five accused hired a mini bus RJX 1121 belonging to Motilal and undertook journey to various places. They first visited Jaipur, then Delhi and Amritsar. Jammu, Srinagar, Gulmarg, Hardwar, Agra, Indore, Aurangabad, Poone, Bombay and Ahmedabad. They however, did not visit Kanyakumari. But after their return they submitted their respective claims, they entered into criminal conspiracy, cheated the administration by claiming L.T.C. bills showing false visit to Kanyakumari for the purpose of causing pecuniary advantage to themselves and causing loss to H.M.T. by charging more amount than they were entitled. According to the charge-sheet they were only entitled to charge from Ajmer to Gulmarg and back. They however submitted the claims showing travel to Kanyakumari and thus also made false documents. S D. Gangwani was made an approver and Shri Motilal a witness and charge-sheet was submitted against remaining four, namely, C.H. Logani, J.S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1989 Supreme(Raj) 756

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTV.S.Dave, J.C.H. Logani and ors. - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan - RespondentS.B. Cr. Appeal No. 371 of 1980.Decided On : 25-07-1989

The absence of criminal intent or mens rea is a valid defense in cases involving conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and falsification of documents.

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
V.S.Dave, J.
C.H. Logani and ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 371 of 1980.
Decided On : 25-07-1989