Qualified expert evidence is not perjury when based on insufficient material and given without deliberate falsehood.

Qualified expert opinion given on insufficient material did not amount to false evidence, because the witness's oral answers remained consistent with the written report and were expressly provisional. The court reiterated that expert evidence is advisory, and a mere failure to accept it does not by itself justify perjury proceedings. Proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure require a real appearance of deliberate falsehood and an inquiry expedient in the interests of justice; on the material available, no dishonest intent or shift in stand was shown, so the proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were justified against an expert witness on the allegation that his oral evidence amounted to false evidence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The opinion given by the expert in court was consistent with his written report that no definite opinion could be formed without the suspected firearm. The later answer that the cartridges appeared to have been fired from two different firearms was elicited in the context of a court question and was expressly qualified as non-definite and dependent on further examination. Expert evidence is advisory in character, and an expert may state a qualified or provisional view where the available material is insufficient. Mere rejection of such evidence, or the fact that it is not ultimately accepted, does not by itself justify initiation of proceedings for perjury. The power under Section 340 is to be exercised only when it is expedient in the interests of justice to inquire into an offence that appears to have been committed, and the material did not disclose deliberate falsehood or a shift in stand attributable to dishonest intent.

Conclusion: The proceedings under Section 340 were not warranted and were quashed; the appellant succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A qualified or inconclusive expert opinion, especially one given on insufficient material and without deliberate falsehood, does not amount to perjury, and proceedings under Section 340 should not be initiated unless the court is satisfied that an inquiry is expedient in the interests of justice into a real appearance of false evidence.

---