ISSUE:
Whether the respondents' prolonged omission to perform their mandatory duties indicated criminal misconduct or mere negligence?
Whether the lower courts erred in prematurely evaluating evidence and relying on unverified documents at the charge-framing stage?
RULE:
The existence of criminal misconduct or conspiracy cannot be inferred merely from negligence. A deliberate and conscious omission extending over a period of time, coupled with other incriminating material, must be considered in totality to determine culpability.
At the stage of framing charges, a court must limit its consideration to the materials collected in the investigation and referred to in the charge sheet under Section 173 CrPC. Any reliance on external or unverified documents is improper.