– No, it is not applicable. The order of a superior to an inferior servant to commit an offense is not a valid defense. Thus, when under an order of superior a subordinate officer fires a shot at a mob which otherwise, was no means they were violent, it will be held that subordinate officer will be held liable. As he was not bound to obey illegal orders. The officer could have refused to execute the order.
– This section only excuses a person from criminal liability who, in good faith, commits an act which he believes he is justified to do, due to a mistake of fact.

The liability of one person due to the acts of other person is known as Vicarious liability. In case of Principal and agent the Principle is always responsible to the acts done by his agent in the scope of employement or in the scope of agency. The principal will be held liable for the acts of the agent in the sense if a agent commits a wrong while working for the principal then the principal will be held liable instead of Agent. And if it is a wrong committed during his personal work then there can be no immunity under this concept of Vicarious liability, For example, If A is an Agent to B. And all the transactions and courses are all performed by A in place of B ie if he is working to deliver flowers and all decorative during the process of all agency and then collect money from them and then he is going to account those back to the principal B.If this is his duty and during the process of delivery A commits an accident where 3 were severely injured because of the accident. So, all those three people can claim damages from the principal for the act of Agent. So,this is the principle of Vicarious liability. And if he commits an accident not during the scope of agency be it something like when he is purchasing some articles for his home then those three people cannot bring the question of damages to the Principal. However in torts the person is always is responsible for his or her own acts. So, in some way or the other the agent has to accord to the principal for the loss suffered. And if the agent not in his authority takes the decision wisely without the principal permission then the agent only will be held liable even if it is in the course of employment. For example Jignesh is the owner of a taxi which drops people from one place to other. He authorized Ramesh to make use of it and get the money back to him. But one day Ramesh allowed his friend Suresh to drive the taxi and make money out of it. This wasn’t informed to Mr Jignesh. And during the drive of Suresh he commits an accident and injures a person. So, here in this case the agent acted beyond his authority and delegated it to some other person so in this case he didn’t act according to the scope of agency so the principal will not be held liable for that and even the agent is personally liable for the tort and he is even liable to pay Jignesh in case of any fault in vehicle due to accident.