Perjury sanction requires deliberate falsehood and public interest; confused affidavit statement was not enough, so prosecution was declined.

An affidavit filed in support of a restoration application can amount to evidence for offences relating to false evidence, but perjury proceedings are not automatic. Sanction depends on a prima facie showing of deliberate and conscious falsehood on a material matter and on whether prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice. On the record, the impugned statement was treated as made in confusion rather than as a deliberate falsehood, and the earlier restoration order had already restored the appeal on payment of costs without considering criminal action expedient. Sanction for prosecution was therefore declined and the request to initiate criminal proceedings was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings for perjury should be sanctioned on the basis of the alleged false averment in the affidavit filed in support of the restoration application.

Analysis: An affidavit is evidence for the purpose of the penal provisions relating to false evidence, but initiation of perjury proceedings is not automatic. The Court must be satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of justice to sanction prosecution and that there is a prima facie case showing a deliberate and conscious falsehood on a matter of substance. On the record, the impugned statement was found to have been made in confusion and not as a deliberate falsehood. The same factual issue had already been noticed in the restoration order, where the appeal was restored on payment of costs and no criminal action was then considered expedient.

Conclusion: Sanction for prosecution was declined and the request to initiate criminal proceedings was rejected.

---