Materiality and judicial necessity govern perjury complaints, while IBC offences remain triable only by the Special Court.

A false statement must be material to the issue before perjury findings can stand, and complaint proceedings under Section 340 CrPC require a judicial finding that prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice. Here, the alleged incorrect declaration in Form No. 18 was not material to conversion into an LLP, the supposed inconsistency on leasehold units was not a real contradiction, and pending insolvency proceedings and liabilities would continue against the LLP. The tribunal also had no jurisdiction to punish offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, because such offences are triable by the Special Court. The findings of perjury, fine, and complaint direction were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders holding the appellants guilty of perjury, imposing a fine, and directing initiation of complaint proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were sustainable in law.

Analysis: The alleged incorrect declaration in Form No. 18 was made before the Registrar of Companies for conversion of the company into an LLP. On the facts found, the declaration was not material to the conversion, and the pending insolvency proceedings could not be evaded by such conversion because the liabilities and pending proceedings continued against the LLP under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008. The alleged inconsistency regarding handing over of leasehold units was also found to be no real contradiction and, in any event, had no material bearing on the conversion issue. Further, no finding was recorded that it was expedient in the interests of justice to direct prosecution, which is a statutory prerequisite for action under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Tribunal also lacked jurisdiction to convict and punish for offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, since such offences are triable by the Special Court constituted under the Companies Act, 2013.

Conclusion: The finding of perjury, the imposition of fine, and the direction for complaint proceedings were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the impugned orders could not be sustained either on merits or on jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A false statement must be material and there must be a judicial finding that prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice before complaint proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be directed, and offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be punished by the Adjudicating Authority in place of the Special Court.

---