Case: R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State Of Kerala

required for specific offences." The author then comments: "Criminal offences vary in that some may require intention as the mens rea, some require only recklessness or some other state of mind and some are even satisfied by negligence. The variety in fact goes considerably further than this in that not only do different offences make use of different types of mental element, but also they utilise those elements in different ways." It is clear thus that the accused must have the mental state or degree of fault at the relevant time. It may of course differ from crime to crime according to the definition thereof. The matter of degrees may also differ. That is to say generally the mental state and the criminal act must coincide. The criminal act may be one which may be intended by the wrong doer. It is as well known were intention is not punishable except when it is accompanied by an act or conduct of commission or omission on the part of the accused. As indicated earlier, situation varies in respect of different kinds of crimes as in some of them even negligence or careless act may constitute an offence or there may be cases of presumptions and putting the accused to proof to the contrary. In the case in hand we have found that there is no sale of energy to M/s. GIL by KSEB nor the appellants had any say in price fixation for M/s. GIL by KEB. In this light we4 may pass on to Criminal Law - J.C. Smith, Brian Hogan [ Criminal Law, Smith, Hogan, 6th Edition, p31], where proposition of law is put as follows: "It is a general principle of criminal law that a person may be convicted of a crime unless the prosecution have proved beyond reasonable doubt both (a) that he caused a certain event or that responsibility is to be attributed to him for the existence of a certain state of affairs, which is forbidden by criminal law, and (b) that he had a defined state of mind in relation to the causing of the event or the existence of the state of affairs.The event, or state of affairs, is called the actus reus ad the state of mind the mens rea of the crime." 44. We further find the said principle of criminal jurisprudence stated in Criminal Law by K.D. Gaur [Criminal Law - cases and materials, K.D. Gaur, Third edition, p.23], wherein it is stated as follows: "Criminal guilt would attach to a man for violations of criminal law. However, the rule is not absolute and is subject to limitations indicated in the Latin maxim, actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. It signifies that there can be no crime without a guilty mind. To make a person criminally accountable, it must be proved that an act, which is forbidden by law, has been caused by his conduct, and that the conduct was accompanied by a legally blameworthy attitude of mind. Thus, there are two components of every crime, a physical element and a mental element, usually called actus reus and mens rea respectively."45. Glanville Williams in Criminal Law [Criminal Law - Glanville Williams - The General Part - Second Edition p.1] has also stated as follows in connection with the intention accompanying the act" "The chief problems in the general part of criminal law pertain to the requirement of a criminal state of mind, mens rea; but these cannot be adequately discussed without a preliminary exploration of the nature of an actus reus" It is further stated: "Although thoughts are free, the uttering of them is another matter. Speaking or writing is an act, and is capable of being treason, sedition, conspiracy or incitement; indeed, almost any crime can be committed by mere words, for it may be committed by the accused ordering an innocent agent (e.g., a child under eight) to do the act. But to constitute a criminal act there must be (as said already) something more than a mere mental resolution. Apparent, but not real, exceptions to this proposition are treason and conspiracy. It is treason to compass the Kings death, but the law requires an overt act manifesting the intention; and this act must be something more than a confession of the intention. It must be an act intended to further the intention; perhaps, too, it must actually do so..." 46. Thus, looking to the definition of the crime in the case in hand namely, clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act, according to the principle indicated above it is necessary that the act must have been done illegally abusing his position as public servant for obtaining benefit pecuniary or otherwise for himself or for someone else. This is an offence which would require an intention to accompany the act. The element of mental state would be necessary to do a concious act to get the required result of pecuniary advantage or to obtain any valuable thing, even if it is for someone else, then too element of mental state must be there at the relevant time. In view of the facts and circumstances indicated in the discussion held earlier in this judgment, and finding recorded on facts, we firstly hold that facts leading to charges are not proved and we also find that the element of mens rea and intention is totally lacking. The electrical energy was exported to Karnataka/KEB at the request of State of Karnataka during the period of crisis of shortage of energy which is not objected to, so as to be illegal but for a part of it which is allocated by the State of Karnataka/KEB to M/s. GIL which constitutes no offence. The prosecution failed to prove the case of sale of electricity by KSEB to M/s. GIL or the KSEB or A1 and A2 having caused profit to M/s. GIL. Admittedly, appellants did not stand to gain in any manner. The prosecution case thus fails.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]46. Thus, looking to the definition of the crime in the case in hand namely, clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act, according to the principle indicated above it is necessary that the act must have been done illegally abusing his position as public servant for obtaining benefit pecuniary or otherwise for himself or for someone else. This is an offence which would require an intention to accompany the act. The element of mental state would be necessary to do a concious act to get the required result of pecuniary advantage or to obtain any valuable thing, even if it is for someone else, then too element of mental state must be there at the relevant time. In view of the facts and circumstances indicated in the discussion held earlier in this judgment, and finding recorded on facts, we firstly hold that facts leading to charges are not proved and we also find that the element of mens rea and intention is totally lacking. The electrical energy was exported to Karnataka/KEB at the request of State of Karnataka during the period of crisis of shortage of energy which is not objected to, so as to be illegal but for a part of it which is allocated by the State of Karnataka/KEB to M/s. GIL which constitutes no offence. The prosecution failed to prove the case of sale of electricity by KSEB to M/s. GIL or the KSEB or A1 and A2 having caused profit to M/s. GIL. Admittedly, appellants did not stand to gain in any manner. The prosecution case thus fails.