IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Bibhu Datta Guru, J
M. R. Malik – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 130 of 2002

Subordinate employees are not criminally liable for departmental actions directed by a superior if there is no evidence of mens rea, independent participation, or wrongful personal gain, as mere compliance with official duties does not constitute criminal conspiracy or misconduct.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)(d) - Criminal conspiracy - Forgery - Misappropriation of funds - Mere performance of official duties by subordinates under the instructions of a superior officer cannot constitute criminal conspiracy or criminal misconduct in the absence of mens rea or independent evidence of dishonest intention. (Paras 23, 25, 30, 35)

(B) Criminal Jurisprudence - Evidence - Standard of proof - Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof - To establish forgery under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC, prosecution must prove creation of a false document with intent to cause damage - In absence of expert evidence or reliable material, conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 27, 28, 37)

Facts of the case:
The appellants, as public servants, were charged with criminal conspiracy, forgery, and misappropriation of government funds by preparing false salary bills and withdrawing money in the names of temporary workers who were allegedly engaged for domestic service rather than official duties. The trial court convicted the appellants, relying on the premise that they colluded with their superior to siphon off public funds. The appellants challenged this, stating they merely acted upon the orders of their superior.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the prosecution failed to provide evidence of specific overt acts or independent roles of the subordinates. The evidence established that all actions were taken under the direct supervision and orders of the superior authority. In the absence of proof of mens rea, wrongful gain, or specific fraudulent acts, the conviction was held unsustainable.

Issues: The main issues were whether the evidence proved a criminal conspiracy among the accused and whether the subordinates, performing routine official tasks, could be held criminally liable for the alleged fraudulent acts directed by their superior.

Ratio Decidendi: There is no crime without a guilty mind (actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea). To establish guilt, there must be a physical element and a mental element. As the accused were subordinate officials acting under the valid-seeming instructions of a superior, and there was no evidence demonstrating a shared criminal intent or independent pecuniary advantage, the ingredients of the alleged offences were not met.

Result: Appeal allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside, and the appellants are acquitted of all charges.