Perjury prosecution principles upheld where false oath evidence justified inquiry in the interests of justice.

False statements on oath can justify prosecution for perjury or false evidence when the court considers it expedient in the interests of justice to inquire into the offence. A preliminary inquiry may be undertaken, but it is not mandatory in every case. On the facts, the court found that the petitioner's claim of having no source of income was contradicted by evidence of business income, prior monetary benefits, and undisclosed fixed deposits, and that the trial court had properly assessed the impact of the falsehood on the administration of justice. The refusal to interfere with the direction to initiate prosecution was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order directing initiation of prosecution for alleged perjury and false evidence under the criminal procedure provisions called for interference.

Analysis: The material on record showed that the petitioner had stated on oath that she had no source of income, while the evidence disclosed business income, prior monetary benefits, and undisclosed fixed deposits. The Court applied the settled principle that prosecution in such matters depends on whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the offence, and that a preliminary inquiry is permissible but not mandatory. On the facts, the Court found that the trial court had formed the requisite opinion after considering the effect of the falsehood on the administration of justice and that there was no ground to disturb that view.

Conclusion: The refusal to interfere was justified, and the direction to initiate prosecution was sustained.

---